The Wild Geese & Water 10

Tenth Discourse from the series of 14 discourses - The Wild Geese & Water by Osho.
You can listen, download or read all of these discourses on

The first question:
The latest from the pope: “Defending the human dignity of the poor and their hope for a human future is not a luxury for the church, nor is it a strategy of opportunism, nor a means of currying favor with the masses. It is her duty…”
Anything to say about this most recent statement from the bejeweled and bedecked pontiff?
All the religions have been saying “service to the poor” for centuries, yet poverty goes on increasing. Poverty has not disappeared, the so-called golden future has not arrived, and they have been talking about it for at least ten thousand years. There must be something fundamentally wrong – they don’t really want the poor to disappear from the earth.
They talk about the dignity of the poor, but what dignity can there be in poverty? Poverty is the most humiliating experience in life. It is the root cause of all crimes. It reduces human beings to a state of animality, or even worse. It takes away their humanity and makes them commodities in the marketplace, purchasable, saleable. But beautiful words: “dignity of the poor.” Nobody is going to argue against them except a crazy man like me.
We have heard enough of this nonsense. In the name of “the dignity of the poor,” poverty has to be saved; poverty has to be protected. Whenever you want to protect something ugly, you have to give it a beautiful name. And people live by words. People are so stupid that they become too concerned about words rather than the reality hidden behind them.
There is a cow in the Himalayas, a wild cow, called “the blue cow.” In nineteen fifty-two, the number of blue cows became so high that they started destroying crops. It became a problem, and it had to be solved immediately. The Indian Parliament discussed the matter. They wanted to shoot the blue cows, to kill them because that was the only way. But to kill a cow in India would create bigger problems than it would solve. The cow is the holy mother to the Indians; you cannot kill a cow. So they did a small trick: they didn’t call it a “blue cow,” they called it a “blue horse”! They killed thousands of blue cows – but they were not killing cows, they were killing “blue horses.” Of course it was the blue cow which was killed, but on paper it was the “blue horse.” Nobody bothered about the blue cows at all. There was no protest from the Hindus, who are always ready, who are waiting for such opportunities.
You cannot kill a monkey because monkeys represent Hanuman, the monkey god. You cannot kill an elephant because elephants represent another god, the god Ganesha. You cannot kill a cow – but blue horses? Who cares about blue horses! Nobody is concerned. The problem was solved just by changing the word. Such is the stupidity of humanity.
The poor have to be saved, the misery has to be saved, the suffering has to be saved – for the simple reason that without the poor, the miserable, and the suffering humanity, there is no future for the church. Not only the Catholic Church – no future for any church, Hindu, Mohammedan, Jaina, Buddhist. They have all been living; they have all been in great demand, for the simple reason that people are suffering. And suffering humanity needs consolation, comforts. The present is so ugly that they need hopes for the future. The hopes of the future are nothing but opium for the people. I agree with Karl Marx, I cannot agree with the Polack pope.
The future helps in a way to tolerate the present. It is almost intolerable, it is so inhuman that if hope for the future were taken away, there would be immediate revolution in the world, there would be rebellion everywhere. The establishment would be overthrown within days; the status quo would no longer be there.
The politicians and the priests are in a subtle conspiracy. The politician would not exist if people were not in misery – when they are in misery, they need leaders. When somebody is blind, he needs to be led. When you have your own eyes, you don’t need leaders. When somebody is utterly blissful herenow, who cares about your silly paradise and heaven? Who bothers? This very moment is paradise enough – this very body the buddha, and this very space the lotus paradise. But if the present is ugly, if the present is like an open wound, full of pus… If the present hurts too much, then you need painkillers.
The future is a painkiller: tomorrow everything is going to be okay. It is only a question of today. You have tolerated so much, just a little more, just a little more… And it is always today that comes, it is never tomorrow. Tomorrow always looms there near the horizon. The distance between you and tomorrow remains constantly the same, but it keeps you running, changing, chasing, dreaming, fantasizing about the future.
What the pope says has to be very deeply pondered over. It is the essence of all religious exploitation up to now; this is the history of all that has happened in the name of religion. It has nothing to do with true religiousness. It is absolutely irreligious. It is a political game; hence meditate over each statement.
First, he says, “Defending the human dignity of the poor…” How can you defend the dignity of the poor? There is no other way than by destroying poverty. There is no other way – categorically I say, there is no other way – than to destroy poverty itself. Only when people are not poor do they start feeling that they are worthy. They can have a life of pleasures, happiness, joy; they can rejoice in the beauty and the blessings of nature. But when their stomachs are empty, how can you defend their dignity?
It is a well-known fact that mothers have sold their children for just a few rupees because they were hungry for so many days. Now, to think of a mother selling her child – maybe to a butcher – just for five rupees, just to feed herself for one day: what more indignity can there be? But you cannot blame the mother.
Parents have been known to murder their children for the simple reason that they cannot feed them. It happens every day. Almost every day in India, in some corner or other, girls are sold for prostitution by their own parents – of course with great sadness, with tears in their eyes and in their hearts, crying and weeping. But what else to do? There seems to be no way out.
Every day I read in the newspapers: families first throw their children into a well or into the ocean, then they jump themselves. They destroy the children first, then the mother, then the father himself. Or they take poison and go to sleep.
How can you save the dignity of the poor? Why not destroy poverty?
Nobody says, “Save the dignity of the rich!” That would bring the whole point to a focus that would bring you to a clear-cut perception. No pope, no shankaracharya, no ayatollah says, “We are trying to save the dignity of the rich.” Everybody would laugh. There is no need to save the dignity of the rich. Why is there a need to save the dignity of the poor?
It is poverty that is making their life subhuman. Why not destroy poverty? Now we have the means and the methods to destroy the poverty. It is now within our hands, within our capacity. We can forgive the past and forget all about it because I can see it was impossible for Jesus to destroy poverty. It was impossible for Buddha to destroy poverty because there were no scientific methods available, no technology, no industry. They had to find some rationalization for the poor.
Buddha found rationalization in past lives: you are poor because you have done wrong in past lives. That suits, it makes it reasonable. If you have done so many sins in the past, who is going to suffer? You sow the seeds then you have to reap the crop. Nobody else is going to suffer for you; nobody can suffer on your behalf.
It looks logical. Buddha can be forgiven because there was no other way. The poverty was there, with no possibility to destroy it – at least some consolation, some comfort could be given. If it is from the past, you have a certain rationale for it. And you have the hope also, that if you don’t commit the same kind of things now, in future either you will be born rich, a prince, a princess; or if you are really virtuous you may not need to be born at all, you will live in paradise for eternity.
But today, these popes cannot be forgiven at all because science has provided all the technology that can destroy the poverty as quickly as you can imagine. If it is not being destroyed, the reason is the vested interests of the past don’t want it to be destroyed. They live on it; they are parasites. They are exploiting people and their suffering, so they still go on repeating the same mantras, chanting the same mantras.
Hindus go on saying, Buddhists and Jainas go on saying, “Poverty is because of your past bad karmas.” And Mohammedans, Christians and Jews go on thinking it is because Adam and Eve committed a crime – so you are suffering. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and because you are just part of the same continuum you have to suffer for it.
Today this whole thing is just rubbish. Neither have your past lives anything to do with your poverty, nor has Adam and Eve’s disobedience anything to do with your poverty. Your poverty is there because of our own stupidity now; it has nothing to do with the past. That excuse is escapist, and if it has something to do with the past, then naturally you have to hope for the future. The present is the only reality. Between the past and the future you will be crushed and destroyed – and that has been the case up to now.
These are the people who are trying to save the dignity of the poor, and at the same time they go on helping more and more people to be born on the earth. The pope, on the one hand, is against the use of contraceptives, against the very idea of abortion, against birth control methods. Now this is how poverty is created. Remember, rich people don’t produce many children. Have you ever pondered over the fact, why? Why rich countries are concerned that their population is decreasing? France is concerned because its population is decreasing; Sweden is concerned, too concerned, that its population is decreasing. A great fear that if rich countries go on decreasing in their population, and the poor countries go on increasing in population, sooner or later they will overrun the whole world. Just the sheer fact of their numbers will be enough to overpower, to possess all the rich countries.
Now, it is a very strange world: the rich countries are concerned with how to increase their population, and the poor countries are worried how to decrease their population. Are we living at the same time, or in different worlds, in different centuries? We are not contemporaries; our problems are totally different.
Why do poor people produce more children? The reason is very simple – and the simple and the obvious is always overlooked – the rich person has many other things for his entertainment, and the poor man has only sex; nothing else for his entertainment because everything else costs something. You go to a movie… The poor man earns so little that just going to a movie and all his earnings of the day will be gone. Then how is he going to manage himself and his family? He cannot drink alcohol, he cannot become a Rotarian, a Lion, he cannot afford all these new entertainments. He cannot even have a radio or a TV – he cannot sit before the idiot box, glued to the chair for six hours, otherwise who is going to earn the bread and butter?
After the day’s work, tired, humiliated, tortured, he comes home. The only relaxation, the only entertainment that he knows of that is freely available to him, is sex. Hence poor people produce more children.
Rich people have diversions; sometimes they become so interested in other things that sex becomes secondary. You can find rich people so interested in other things. Somebody may be interested in paintings, collecting paintings; or he may himself be a painter; or may be immensely interested in music; or may be a composer himself; or may be interested in dancing.
There are possibilities – and he can always live his sexual life too, in a vicarious way. My own observation is that when you are seeing sex on the TV screen, you are living it in a vicarious way. You become identified with the man or the woman, whatsoever may be the case. When the man is making love to the woman, deep down in your fantasies you are making love to the woman. It is satisfying in a way. Your cerebral sex is satisfied. Remember, the sex center does not exist in your genitals; the sex center exists in your brain, it is cerebral.
Now there are scientists like Delgado who say that we can put electrodes in the brain, and you can carry a small box, like a matchbox, inside your pocket, with a remote control – so even the wire will not be shown, there will be no wire. You can just put your hand in your pocket, push the button and you will have an orgasm. It will be non-genital. It will not have anything to do with your genitals, and it will be far more satisfying because you will not have to depend on the other person.
And there are many problems when you have to depend on the other person. It is a rare coincidence that the man can satisfy the woman or the woman can satisfy the man. There are discrepancies. Nature is not such a perfect master as you think. The male genital organ is small compared to the female genital tunnel – one inch less. Just in a small city like Pune there is a difference of miles! That difference is unbridgeable.
Their timing is different; the woman will take a longer time to come to an orgasmic peak. For centuries she has been pretending – just to buttress the ego of the male chauvinist pig because he enjoys tremendously that he has given a beautiful orgasm to the woman. So she has been pretending. That’s why it is more satisfying with a prostitute because she knows how to pretend, she is an expert in pretending. She will scream in joy, sing songs in joy, and you will think what a great man you are: look what you have done! She is all bliss – and she is only pretending; you have paid for it. And she will be pretending the same thing after you with somebody else. It is all pretension.
But that’s actually the case with wives too. They have been pretending for centuries. To bring the woman to orgasm, a certain training is needed that is lacking; a certain discipline is needed on the part of the man.
So when you depend on the other there are many problems. If your pleasure is dependent on the other, there is a bondage attached to it too, there is a certain imprisonment. And there is jealousy and there is suspicion, and all kinds of ugly things enter from the back door.
Delgado’s device can be of tremendous help to make men and women free of each other. But I don’t think the Polack pope will agree with it because sex for pleasure is sin, and Delgado’s device will make it absolutely for pleasure.
Sex is right only for a reproductive purpose – that is the religious idea: if you produce children then sex is right. If you are just having fun, you are committing a crime against God because sex is sacred, and fun is not sacred. Now, who has decided that fun is not sacred? I say to you: fun is more sacred than reproducing in an overcrowded world.
But these popes and these priests are all for reproduction, and then they want to save the dignity of the poor. They create poverty!
Mahatma Gandhi was doing the same in India. His whole life he thought he was raising the dignity of the poor, but he was simply changing the name. He was calling the poor, “the children of God.” By calling them “the children of God” nothing was changed – they remained the same poor people. Yes, their egos felt a little flattered. But that is not going to help at all; that is going to create more problems. They will be hungry, they will be ugly, and they will be egoists also. You have added a new dimension to their problems, which were already too complex.
He was also against birth control, he was also against the pill, he was also against any contraceptives. Go on creating children! And moreover, he was against all science, all technology. You will be surprised to know that he was against the railway trains, he was against telephones, he was against all kinds of industries. He was even against things as innocent as the telegraph, the post office. He was against anything invented by man. Man has to go back to nature. Back to nature simply means that there will be even more poor people in the world than there are now because even the rich will become poor, even the middle-class people will fall back into poverty. It will be a huge ocean of poverty. Yes, in a way people will feel good – “We are all equal” – because poverty will be distributed equally. But that is not raising the dignity of the poor.
The only way to raise the dignity of the poor is to destroy poverty. It can be done – now we have all the means and methods to do it. Even communism is not needed at all. In fact, communism has not been able to destroy poverty, in Russia or China or anywhere else. It has simply destroyed the rich people. In fact, the communism that exists in the world is not communism at all: it is only state capitalism. The ownership has changed. Now there is no longer private ownership; instead of private owners the state has become the only owner.
Now this is even worse because when there is only one owner, when there is a monopoly of everything – it is a state monopoly – then there is no freedom possible. Not only is the dignity of the poor not saved or defended, even the dignity of human beings is lost. Dignity as such is lost.
Now Soviet Russia and China are huge concentration camps and nothing else – no freedom of expression, no freedom of thought, no freedom at all. You have to function just like machines; you have to produce more and more for the state, for the great state. And there is a bureaucracy, the Communist bureaucracy, which has replaced the capitalists.
There is no need for communism to destroy poverty; science can do it very easily because a single machine can do the work of thousands of people. But it is not being allowed because it goes against the vested interests, and those interests are pouring their money into the churches.
Who has made the pope “…the bejeweled and bedecked pontiff?” Who has made the Vatican the richest religion in the world, the richest church in the world? From where has all that money come? It is bribery. It is the rich people who go on bribing the church, and the church goes on preaching things which look very religious but are basically political and economical, and are against all revolutions.
The only revolution that can free humanity from poverty is a scientific revolution. In fact, if machines are introduced more and more… [At this moment the electricity fails, so does the sound system.] You see, the Holy Ghost seems to be angry! It must be the work of the Holy Ghost – his representative on the earth is being criticized.
If machines can replace man more and more, within two decades, just within two decades, the whole of humanity can be freed from the indignity of a mechanical life. A laborer working in a factory has become almost a machine. He goes on doing the same thing day in, day out; year in, year out; for thirty years, forty years. Maybe it is just one small repetitious thing. That repetition for forty years necessarily destroys his intelligence. It becomes mechanical.
If machines can do all this work – and they can do – then man is freed; then man can do all those things that he had always wanted to do, but there was no time and no opportunity. He can sing songs, he can dance, he can play, he can meditate, he can pray, he can rest, he can relax, he can be creative, he can paint, sculpt. He can do thousands of things which everybody deep down wants to do but cannot do because there is no opportunity.
The genius of man is in a state of dormancy, stagnant. Because he cannot fulfill the needs of the body, the needs of his soul remain unfulfilled. There is a hierarchy of needs, remember. First you have to fulfill the bodily needs; that is the very foundation of your life. Then you have to fulfill your psychological needs. And only then, and remember, I repeat, only then can you fulfill your spiritual needs.
The poor person struggles first with his basic needs. He cannot be interested in poetry, in music, in painting. How can he be really interested in meditation?
People go on asking me again and again, almost every day there is a question: “Why are people from all over the world coming to you and yet Indians are ignoring you?” They are not ignoring me – their basic needs are not fulfilled; there is a gap between them and me. They are searching for bread and I am talking about meditation. I cannot give them bread, I cannot give them shelter, and if I suggest to them how they can get the shelter and the bread, their whole conditioning goes against it. They will not listen to me.
If I suggest that birth control is needed, the pill is needed… Because to me, the pill is one of the greatest things that has happened after the bullock cart; it is one of the most revolutionary things. There have been only three revolutionary things in the history of man. First was fire, second was the bullock cart, and third is the pill. Their conditioning goes against it if I suggest to them, “Do this, and poverty can be destroyed.”
They are not interested in meditation, they cannot be. Their basic needs are destroying them. They don’t have the opportunity, or the energy, or the time, or the intelligence, to be interested in meditation. First, the basic needs have to be fulfilled and then the psychological needs.
This is my constant observation: if a person comes to me for the wrong reasons, he is bound to be angry at me because I will not be fulfilling his needs. I receive hundreds of letters from South Africa – all the letters are concerned… Somebody is suffering from a ghost, somebody has been put under a spell, somebody is afraid of a black magician – so they need me to protect them and send them a mantra which can save their life. Now, I cannot do all this nonsense.
When Indians write to me, they always write about money. They want money – they want their sons to go to the colleges, to the universities. Somebody writes: Can you send my son to Oxford or to Cambridge? All their needs are basically physiological. They are not the people who can be interested in meditation. They cannot look at the stars – their eyes are focused on the earth, their necks are paralyzed; they have lost all the power to see that which is beautiful. Even if they look at the moon they will think of a chapati! It is natural because we project our own needs; everything becomes just a screen for our projection.
When some visitors, Indians, come here, and after the lecture I go around Buddha Hall, I can see they are not looking at me; they are looking at the Rolls Royce. They are nudging each other, “Look!” They are not interested in me, their whole obsession is the Rolls Royce. That’s why I am keeping it – at least something for them to enjoy.
I see even educated Indians… But even educated Indians are not basically fulfilled. Their sexual lives are starved, their nourishment is not enough. Their body is not as it should be; something is missing. When they come here and I enter Buddha Hall, and with folded hands I welcome you, only those few Indians don’t answer – as if their hands are paralyzed. They cannot even fold their hands just to welcome me – and I am welcoming them. It is not that they have to take the initiative, I am taking the initiative. But they cannot even do that. They look so ugly. They can see, all around, thousands of people, with love, with gratitude, folding their hands – and folding their hands in love and gratitude. And respect and surrender should be more natural to the Indians; it is their way of greeting. But they cannot even greet me, as if something prevents them; like a thick iron wall between them and me.
What is the wall? The wall is that I don’t exist here to fulfill their needs. I am, in a way, irrelevant to their context. Somewhere, deep down, the distance is so great that even a greeting is impossible. They look embarrassed. They can see what they are doing, but they are somehow paralyzed, as if it is impossible for them to just welcome me. If they cannot even fold their hands, do you think they will be able to allow me into their innermost core? That’s impossible.
The basic needs have to be fulfilled first. Science can do that. The psychological needs then have to be taken care of – art, aesthetics, can do that. Only then does religion enter. Religion is the greatest luxury in the world because it is the peak, the virgin peak of Everest, the snow which has not been trodden by anybody. To reach it you will have to move from the valleys where you are living. It is a long pilgrimage. Only when somebody reaches the peak of Everest, to the peak of consciousness, is there dignity. The poor cannot have any dignity. The poverty will prevent the dignity from happening.
Hence, I say, the pope is absolutely wrong, saying, “Defending the human dignity of the poor and their hope for a human future…” Yes, he is trying to save their hope because if they can go on hoping, then the church can hope to exist. Their hope is basically the hope for the future popes. But I don’t think it is going to happen. In fact, there is an ancient prophecy of Nostradamus that the last pope will have his name starting with a W. And this Polack pope has his name starting with W. I think this is the end!
I don’t believe in prophecies, but sometimes miracles happen. This is the first pope in the long succession of popes whose name begins with W. This may be the last, and rejoice if the prophecy is fulfilled!
The only hope for the church – Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian, Buddhist – is that humanity should remain poor; then they need opium. Otherwise, who wants opium? When do you want to drink alcohol? – when you are miserable, when you want to drown your misery in something, when you want to forget it all; when you want to have a little rest from your worries, anxieties, anguishes. That’s what religion has been doing in the past.
Religion is nothing but a drug, a very subtle drug. But if people are really happy, rejoicing in life, living with intensity and passion, like flowers and birds, and rivers and mountains and stars, who will need these fools around? Who will go to the Vatican, or to the Kaaba, or to Kashi? Who will listen to all kinds of nonsense?
There is no hope for religion as it has existed up to now. Yes, there will be a totally different kind of religiousness if man becomes happy. That’s what I am trying to make clear to you: what kind of religiousness is possible if humanity becomes happy. Then it will not be a religion of renouncing.
Buddha says, “There are four truths: first, life is misery; second, there is a method to end the misery; third, you can do the method, you can go through the process, it is not impossible, it is possible for all human beings; and fourth, there is a state beyond misery.”
Now, if there is no misery, Buddha’s first truth is canceled. And once you cancel the first truth, what is the need of the second? If there is no misery, what is the need of a method to end the misery? The whole house topples down. And it is not only Buddha’s house. He’s simply making it clear what others have said only in a very implied way. He is a very rational man, so he is saying it exactly, precisely, in a scientific way. But this is what all other religions have been doing.
Their basic assumption is that life is misery. If this is the basic assumption, then renunciation is, of course, the method to get out of it – renounce life, escape to the monasteries, to the deserts, to the Himalayas. If life is misery, then escapism is religion. I am teaching you here that life is not misery. If I am true, then escapism loses all significance, all meaning, all relevance. Then there is no point in renouncing life. If life is bliss… And that’s what I say again and again – life is bliss, ultimate bliss, life is ecstasy. Rejoice! There is no question of renouncing it.
This is going to be the future religiousness. And remember my distinction: I am not calling it the future religion, I am calling it the future religiousness – because religion will give you the idea that it will be Christian, Hindu, Mohammedan; a creed, a dogma. No! Religiousness: a diffused kind of fragrance surrounding the earth, with people rejoicing, dancing, singing; people rejoicing so much that a tremendous gratitude arises in their being, a gratitude for the unknown energy that has given them birth, for the unknown source from where they have come, and to where they have to return one day; for the unknown whole which has made all these benedictions possible. Only then does man have dignity. It is not a question of dignity for the poor or for the rich: human beings will have dignity.
In fact, the so-called religions have made man feel very undignified. They have created guilt; they have condemned all that is natural in you, all that is spontaneous in you. They have praised the unnatural and condemned the natural. They have made everybody feel like they are crawling on the earth like an ugly worm – crawling on the earth in the mud. While my effort here is to remind you that you have wings, that you are a bird, that you can soar toward the stars, that the whole sky is yours, that even the sky is not the limit. Only then does man have dignity.
It is not a question of poor or rich, black or white, man or woman. Man as such has dignity only when life has dignity, when life is joy, when life has the flavor of ecstasy, adventure, exploration.
He says: “Defending the human dignity of the poor and their hope for a human future is not a luxury for the church…” That I know. It is not a luxury for the church: it is its very basic need. Without it, it cannot exist; without it, it will not have even a single moment to live. It is not a luxury, it is its very breath. With that I will agree with the Polack pope. I can rarely agree with him, but on a few points I can agree.
He says, “…nor is it a strategy of opportunism, nor a means for currying favor with the masses. It is her duty.” Nobody had asked him… Why is he saying that this is not a strategy of opportunism? Somewhere in his unconscious he knows it is because he was sermonizing on his own. I have read the whole sermon that you have asked about. Just the other day I was reading the whole sermon. Nobody had asked him, nobody had raised the question. He was talking on his own, he was opening his own heart. Deep down he suspects that it is a strategy of opportunism.
Sigmund Freud says even a slip of the tongue has some unconscious roots behind it. If suddenly somebody stands up and says, “I am not a thief! Who says I am a thief? I am not a thief!” Then what will it show? It will simply show, “Give him to the police! Why is he shouting that he is not a thief?” There must be something in him which has erupted in spite of himself. Why is he defending, saying that he and his church are not opportunistic? It is. It has always been.
For example, the whole history of the church – and not only his church, of all churches – is ample proof that they have been opportunistic, always opportunistic. They fit in with the status quo – whosoever is in power, they serve the master. They are just like dogs: the moment they feel that the master has changed, they change their attitude also, they start wagging their tail before the new master.
He says that it is not a strategy of opportunism. Then what is it? He made this statement in the Philippines, one of the poorest countries in the world. When he was in America he did not make such a statement. When he was traveling in the Western, rich, affluent societies, he was not making such statements. Now in Karachi, in the Philippines, in the East where poverty is everywhere, why is he making such a statement? It is opportunistic, it is meant for “…currying favor with the masses.”
The masses are so stupid that they immediately fall in line with anybody who praises them. Those praises are just hot air, but the masses feel very good. Immediately the masses are with the person who praises them. This is an ancient trick of the politicians and the priests. They have changed thousands of times; for example: in Galileo’s time, the Catholic Church and the Catholic pope decided that Galileo should take back his statement that the earth goes around the sun because the Catholic Church had believed for hundreds of years that it is just vice versa – the sun goes around the earth.
Religious people are very afraid that if even a single statement proves to be wrong in their scripture, then all other statements become suspicious. It is a natural conclusion. If Jesus can make a statement which is absolutely false, unscientific, then what is the guarantee that other statements are true? If he does not even know whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth, what he knows about God may not be true either; he may not know anything about paradise. If he does not know about this world, how can you believe that his statements about the other world are right?
Hence, all the religions try to stick stubbornly to every statement. Howsoever ridiculous it appears, they have to stick to it. But you cannot stick to a lie for long, and in fact, I don’t see there is any point. The simple thing is that Jesus has no need to be a physicist or an astronomer or a chemist or a mathematician.
For example, I am not a physicist, so if I say something wrong about physics, it’s perfectly okay. There is no need to stick to it. I am not infallible. If somebody points out to me that this statement is not right as far as physics is concerned, I am immediately ready to correct it because I’m not a physicist. If I had made the statement, I was not making it as a physicist. I may have been illustrating something, but an illustration is an illustration. It does not change my argument.
Just the other day somebody wrote that my statement about Somnath is not historical: there were not twelve hundred priests there, but only five hundred. So how does that make any difference? My logic remains the same. But he thinks that he is proving me wrong. My argument was that those priests of the Somnath temple were saying, “There is no need to defend the temple; the Vedic mantras are enough, so there is no need for an army.” And when Mahmud Ghaznavi came, he himself was surprised that there was not anybody to defend it. Instead of five hundred, I had said twelve hundred priests were chanting mantras, doing Vedic rituals to prevent Mahmud Ghaznavi from conquering the richest temple of the country.
Warriors from all over the country had offered their services, “We can come and fight Mahmud Ghaznavi.” But they were, in fact, humiliated and insulted by the priests. The chief priest told them, “Do you think you can defend God? This is God’s temple. God defends you, you cannot defend God, so don’t be foolish. And we know the ancient science of mantras which will create a subtle energy around the temple so nobody can enter.”
But Mahmud Ghaznavi entered, and the god that defends everybody was destroyed in a single hit. He hammered the chief statue of the temple, and the statue fell into thousands of pieces. Inside the statue the priests had been hiding immense treasures, the most valuable diamonds. They were scattered all over. Mahmud Ghaznavi had never seen such diamonds. That statue was a kind of safe – there was a hole through which they were dropping those diamonds inside – and nobody could ever have suspected, no thief would ever have suspected that the statue was being used as a device to protect the treasures.
Mahmud Ghaznavi was a Mohammedan; he destroyed the statue. He was not aware that there were treasures inside it – he was simply interested in destroying the most important temple of the country.
I had said that there were twelve hundred priests, and now somebody has written that my knowledge of history is absolutely zero – there were only five hundred priests. Does it matter? My argument remains the same; twelve hundred, five hundred, five, one, any number will do. And I am not so foolish to count how many priests were there. One more or one less, it’s perfectly okay – I agree there were five hundred people. And somebody says there were not five hundred but only four hundred and ninety-nine. So okay, but my argument remains the same. The thing is my theme, not my illustration.
But the Catholic Church could not accept Galileo’s idea. They forced old Galileo to take his statement back. Galileo took his statement back. He was a man of immense sense of humor. I love Galileo. Many have thought that he was a coward – he was not. Many have thought that he had not the courage to fight, but I don’t see… What is the need to fight with fools, when you can just get out with a sense of humor? Why fight? He simply said, “Perfectly right! I will make a statement in my book that whatsoever I have said is wrong – the earth does not go around the sun, and the Catholic Church is right, the sun goes around the earth. But one thing I have to tell you: even if I take my statement back, the earth will still go around the sun. My statement won’t make any difference!”
Do you see the sense of humor of the man? His intelligence? And he made a statement in his book. In a footnote he wrote, “What I have said above is not right.” And in the end he says, “But what can I do? Still neither the sun nor the earth is bound to follow my ideas. They go on doing their thing. What Galileo says is irrelevant.”
This Polack pope has opened the case again after three hundred years because now it is an established fact that the earth goes around the sun. Now to go on saying that the sun goes around the earth looks so foolish. He has reopened the case to correct the error.
This has been going on for two thousand years; again and again they have been correcting. What does it show? It simply shows opportunism. At that moment the masses were with them, the masses were with the Bible. Now they know the masses are more aware of science, and if they have to choose between a scientific statement and a biblical statement they will choose the scientific statement. Now people are more educated. This is opportunism – reopening the case now and changing it.
He says that it is not a strategy of opportunism. Then what is it? – it is sheer business to tell the poor people about their dignity. And whenever they talk to the poor people, they always quote Jesus as saying: “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” They forget completely that the meaning of Jesus is totally different. The whole statement is: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” He does not mean that they should be starving, poor; he simply means that they should not be egoists. “Blessed are the poor in spirit…” The ego makes you feel higher and superior to others. When there is no ego, that is poverty of the spirit. It has nothing to do with the poverty that exists in India, in the Philippines, in Pakistan. This is not the poverty Jesus is talking about. But they use Jesus’ quotations, and they go on saying that this is not opportunism. Then what is it?
And he says it is not “…a means of currying favor with the masses.” He must be consciously feeling guilty. It is so apparent that it is simply a way to have the support of the people. I know it perfectly well. I have done all kinds of things – I have been moving with the masses, and I know how masses become victims. It is so simple. I have talked to crowds of Hindus, I have talked to crowds of Mohammedans, Jainas, Sikhs, and I have really enjoyed all those things. I have giggled inside to myself, “What kind of fools the world is full of!”
I have talked to Jainas on Mahavira, and they have come to me and they have said, “For the first time, listening to you, we have understood what greatness, what immense truth Mahavira has given to the world.” For twenty-five centuries they had not discovered that truth. In fact, it has nothing to do with Mahavira; I am simply putting my ideas through his mouth. But they were worshipping me.
I have talked to Sikhs on Nanak, and they said, “Nobody has ever been able to open the mysteries of the statements of Nanak as you have done.” There are no mysteries, or anything; those mysteries are my inventions, but I had not told them this. I simply laughed inside to myself. You never found me laughing; I always laughed inside because laughing outside is dangerous.
I have talked to Hindus about Krishna, and they were rejoicing. Fifty thousand to a hundred thousand people used to gather to listen to me on Krishna, and they were thrilled that their Krishna has such profundities, such great insights. In fact, if Krishna were there he would have been very puzzled.
I have talked about many people. If they come to the ashram, they won’t be allowed inside, but when I have talked about them I have given my insight to their words.
I receive many letters from the West, “Nobody has told us the truth about Jesus except you.” It has nothing to do with Jesus, it has nothing to do with Krishna, it has nothing to do with Mahavira or Buddha. I am simply talking about my truth.
But then finally I said, “It is enough! It is absolutely absurd, meaningless because they cannot understand. Only their egos are feeling fulfilled, nourished. I am not helping them; on the contrary, their egos are becoming bigger.” Hence I dropped that whole thing completely. And the moment I stopped talking on Mahavira, Jainas disappeared. Only a few Jainas remained who had understood me – that it has nothing to do with Mahavira, it is my own understanding that I am giving to Mahavira. It is my light that I am focusing on Mahavira. Only those few Jainas who understood have remained with me.
Only those Hindus who understood that it has nothing to do with Krishna and Gita have remained with me. It is my experience; I am simply using them as excuses. The same is true about others. But I could only do that when I decided that I do not have to go to the masses at all.
Just the other day I was reading an article against me. Somebody has written, “Why don’t I go outside the ashram?” The reason he has given is that I have hypnotized the whole atmosphere, so whosoever enters here, the moment he enters the gate, becomes hypnotized. So I don’t go outside the ashram because there it will be very difficult to hypnotize people. I loved the idea – a great discovery!
What the pope is doing is simply “…currying favor with the masses.” And he says it is the church’s duty. To whom? Duty to whom? He means duty to the poor. That’s wrong. It is duty to the vested interests; it is service to the establishment.
So only on two points do I agree with him. One is: “Defending the human dignity of the poor and their hope for a human future is not a luxury for the church…” It is not a luxury, it is its very life, its basic need. And the second point: he says, “It is her duty…” That too is true. It is duty to the establishment, duty to all that is ugly, to all that is dead, to all that is past.

The outraged husband, having caught his wife in another man’s arms, shouted, “Sir! This is my wife, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself!”
The man replied, “If that is your wife, you ought to be ashamed of yourself!”

It was eleven-thirty, and Hunchback Harry wanted to be home in time for the midnight movie, so he took a shortcut through the graveyard. He was very nervous as he walked among the gravestones. Suddenly there was a flash of lightning, and a loud clap of thunder, and a voice boomed, “I am Lucifer! I am the Devil!”
Terrified out of his wits, Hunchback Harry cowered behind a tombstone shivering. “Dost thou have a desire?” thundered Lucifer.
“Y-y-yes,” mumbled Hunchback Harry. “I want to lose my hunchback.”
“Right! It shall be done!” shouted Lucifer, and vanished. And thus Harry lost his hunchback.
The next night in the pub the lads were amazed.
“Hey, Harry,” said Charlie, “what happened to your hunchback?” So Harry told about how he had walked home through the graveyard and met Lucifer.
“Mm, that’s interesting,” said Charlie, and he decided he was going to walk home through the graveyard that night.
As he crept along there was a blinding flash and loud thunder. “I am Lucifer! I am the Devil!” Charlie dived in panic behind the nearest tombstone and shuddered with fear. “Dost thou have a hunchback?” roared Lucifer.
“N-n-no,” stuttered Charlie.
“Right! Take this one!”

I agree with the Polack pope, but not according to him, not what he wants. I agree according to myself. That is the only way I can agree with him.
A certain innocence is needed. But the priests are never innocent. They are so knowledgeable, they are lost in a jungle of words and concepts and beautiful theories. Somebody has to hit them hard and bring them back to earth. That’s what I’m trying to do. It hurts.
I have received a news cutting from Kolkata. The reporter says that he went to Mother Teresa with a cutting from a newspaper about my statement that she is idiotic. She became so mad that she tore up the cutting and threw it away. She was so angry that she was not even willing to make any comment. But she has made a comment – tearing up the newspaper cutting!
The reporter said, “I was puzzled. I said, ‘The cutting belonged to me. I had just come to show it to you and to hear your comment.’”
And these people think they are religious people. In fact, by tearing up the cutting she simply proved what I have said was right: she is idiotic – this is idiotic. I receive so many “compliments” – in inverted commas – from all over the world that if I start tearing them up that would be enough exercise for me. And I hate exercise!
These popes need a little more innocence. These Mother Teresas lead a life of such hypocrisy, such cunningness, such deceptiveness, that they need to become a little more human, a little more simple, a little more innocent. Only then will they see the truth. And it is time that the truth should be seen, otherwise there is no hope for humanity. It will go on and on in circles; in the same circles it has been going on for thousands of years.
Jesus is right when he says, “Unless you are like small children you will not enter my kingdom of God.” And these popes and Teresas are not like small children. I would like my sannyasins to be like small children…

The Jones family recently moved from their suburban home into a far-out nudist colony. One day the youngest son walked up to his father and asked. “Dad, how can I tell a rich man from a poor man in this place?”

Of course, this is a great question for a child in a nudist colony. How can you tell who is rich, who is poor? Of course, when people are dressed you see immediately who is rich, who is poor. But in a nudist colony?

His father was speechless for a second, but fathers can’t accept that they don’t know. Then laughingly he said, “I guess a rich man has a bigger cock than a poor man.”
This answer seemed to satisfy his son’s curiosity and he left.
A few days later while working in the garden he heard his son yelling, “Dad, quick! Come quick!”
He jumped up and started running toward the house calling, “What is wrong, son? What is wrong?”
The boy shouted back, “There is a poor man chasing mummy and getting richer by the moment!”

Enough for today.

Spread the love