Cheti Sake To Cheti #6

No harm. The second is better.
Still, I feel afraid.
Yes, let fear be there.
Then out of fear I won’t be able to do anything. I get paralyzed beforehand.
No, no, it’s not like that. If fear arises, we should understand it as a part of life. A sprout is pushing out of the seed. Inside the seed it was very safe. Now it is entering danger. A tender shoot is coming out: a stone may fall and kill it, a bird may peck it away, a child may twist it off. There will be storms, winds, sun, rain, hail. A little sprout is rising—everything can break it. Inside the seed it was absolutely safe.

The very moment a child comes out of the mother’s womb, the world of fear begins. There is danger all day, every day—life is a risk. Even when you return home now—who knows whether you will find your wife there or she may have gone! Danger is always there. But we sit convinced in our minds, “No, my wife could never do such a thing.”

What we hold is only our own clinging. There is no certainty that when you return the house will still be there and not burned down. What is certain? Houses burn every day; wives leave every day. There is no difficulty in that. This should be accepted: all these dangers are a part of life. If you try to avoid danger, you will die—because avoiding danger is a way of dying.

Yet before danger, we become so paralyzed that we still have to take a step—we have to move one step forward.

When you do take a step, you have to move fully aware that there is fear, there is danger, there is risk. Where your foot stands now, that spot may also be lost; and where you are placing your foot, that spot may not even exist. This hesitation will remain. And it should be accepted naturally as part of life. If you won’t take risks, then stand where you are—and you will get bored. Remember: the less danger, the more boredom. That’s why when a society becomes very bored, it goes looking for danger.

Right now in America, someone told me, a new game is in vogue: two cars speed towards each other, each with two wheels on a white strip. Collision is certain. Whoever pulls off the strip first loses. At a hundred miles an hour both are coming head-on. Who swerves first? Who gets scared first? Whoever gets scared and drops off the strip loses. Millions are wagered.

This is the search for danger. Life has become so boring that people are hunting danger. Look closely: even going to the moon, climbing Everest—much of it is the search for danger. We have made ordinary life almost entirely free of danger. All insecurity has been eliminated. There is security; bank balance; insurance; even in death there is no danger—everything is provided for. The job is permanent; if the job goes there is a pension; everything is fixed. The wife is fully “fixed”; oaths have been taken—“we will never leave each other.” Everything is made solid. In this, danger is gone; risk is gone. So life has become boring.

A primitive man’s life was better than ours in this sense that danger was present at every moment—and there was a natural acceptance of danger. No bank, no insurance, no certainty of wife or home or life—so there was a thrill in living. Animals still have that same throb. Look at a deer—so fresh! But how startled the deer is, how afraid! A leaf stirs and it is alert—ready to run.

In my view there are only two options: either accept danger or accept boredom.
But the paralysis that comes even before danger appears...
That paralysis comes because you do not want to accept danger. I am saying there are only two choices—danger or boredom. There is no third. Then make peace with boredom. I mean, make peace with boredom. But you cannot make peace with boredom—you want to be rid of it. And you cannot be rid of boredom unless you are willing to take risks! You understand, don’t you?
Yes, that same circle goes on.
Then it should be made clear. Endure boredom, then. For a few days, endure boredom. Suppose you decide, “I cannot take risks; I will endure boredom.” In a few days you will see you cannot endure boredom. Then take risks! What else will you do with life? We want neither boredom nor danger! That cannot be. Impossible. You understand, don’t you?
(The recording of the question is unclear.)
If it goes deeper, the sexual act will still be sexual, and at the same time something more will be there. Something will be added.
But that “added” will have to be brought in by force.
No, I am not saying you should bring it. I am saying: whoever wants to can do it; whoever doesn’t, need not. That is not the point. If I were telling you to bring it, it would be a point. If you feel this is an inner search worth undertaking...
I too want to make an inner search.
Then how is it forced?
Forced in the sense that I don’t know exactly what will happen by concentrating on the ajna chakra...
You will only know by doing it.
Yes, all right. Up to there we will have to accept your words.
No, no. You accept them because something in you wants to move in that direction. Otherwise, no. And if it ever feels forced, don’t do it.
When I concentrate on the ajna chakra, I don’t feel the excitement of the sex act.
You haven’t really done it yet.
No, I have done it a little...
No, no. Not at all. You have only read a book! You haven’t done it. Do it a little—at least four to six months; make ten to twenty-five experiments.
You may not feel excitement at all!
That difference will indeed come. Sexual excitement will drop; sexual depth will develop. Excitement is not depth. Excitement will go. Excitement is very superficial.
Then the problem isn’t solved.
No, no, I am not saying that! If you want to avoid sex and sex is your problem, I am not recommending this for that. I am saying: because of our wrong view about sex, we never have access to its full depth. If it becomes available in its full depth, the sexual act takes on entirely new meanings we know nothing about. The sexual act simultaneously becomes part of meditation—of which we know nothing. Then, slowly, you will be free of sex; new depths will begin.
If you are afraid of becoming free of sex, you will feel panic, because excitement will go.
In the end even the act may go?
That too is possible in the end. That too is possible.
My problem is sex. I want to move away from it, go beyond it. Now the question is: how to start from there? Suppose someone tells me to be celibate for life—I say that cannot be done. Then how is this problem to be solved?
What is the problem?
It is the problem!
What is the problem in sex?
It is a devastating pattern!
What is devastating?
Physically it is devastating.
Not in the least.
And it has great psychological implications.
Those are all manufactured.
Manufactured, yes—but they create problems.
Not at all. What problem?
Understand: I feel a physical attraction toward her. If I just follow it, I’ll get beaten with sticks.
Then be prepared for the sticks. You have to pay something; nothing comes for free!
I could even die in it.
Then you have to choose.
I have chosen many times...
Then your society is wrong, that it gives you such trouble. Try to create a society of another kind...
As a married man, your suggestion to concentrate on the ajna chakra—I will experiment, but...
Try it a little. And if you feel any discomfort in experimenting... Give it four to six months. Before that, talking much has little point.
I am speaking after a little experimenting.
I am saying: experiment four to six months. At first excitement may go; even the act may become difficult—this too can happen. But experiment fully for four to six months. Because our mind, as it is, does not agree to change even a little. So the mind resists any experiment that could change it. It will raise twenty-five objections and show you twenty-five problems—this cannot happen, that cannot happen; this will happen, that will happen. It will raise many fears. That is part of the mind. And what is that fear? The fear is precisely that the sexual act might end!
(The recording of the question is unclear.)
I understand—I understand your point. Try the experiment a bit. And there is a book by Alan Watts—Nature, Man and Woman. Look at that too. And complete the experiment.
There are so many physiological categories. To which category does this apply?
For that, look through Freder, a German thinker—Sex Perfection—the whole book, so you get the full physiological detail and the whole picture. See these two books.
But you said in your lecture that you have to go through the experience!
No, no—that is about my experience. But in understanding the details, many people are experimenting across the world at many levels.
But as far as the conclusion of your experience...
I understand. I don’t want to speak at that length now; that’s why I am suggesting books. If you go through them, you will get the full detail. And this Freder is a sexologist; he himself lived among some twenty primitive tribes and made many studies.
And it connects with your views.
It fits very well—perfectly. I am recommending it for that reason; it will help you understand my point. If you see both, it will be much easier to talk. I will send the full name of Freder—you can look him up.
What has happened is that we know almost nothing about sex—nothing at all. Because of that ignorance, we create many problems we don’t even suspect. For instance, in India almost everyone assumes that the sexual act is devastating.
Physiologically that is absolutely wrong—completely wrong. In fact, sexual inactivity is devastating. Activity is not devastating. And it is also interesting that anyone who thinks he can go to extremes in sexual activity is mistaken. The body has checks. You cannot go to extremes; there are bodily checks. Nature has arranged it so you cannot expend surplus force beyond what the body allows.
But one can misuse it, right?
Even misuse is not possible—if you use full understanding. As far as sex has been understood, misuse is not possible. Misuse is impossible.
Then not just sex—by that argument you can’t misuse anything! If we extend that very argument, you can’t misuse anything!
No, no—you can misuse many things.
Why not sex? Because the entire arrangement of sex is deeply biological and its ends are quite different. Your pleasure is not its concern. It is a profound arrangement to continue the line of life and reproduction. The matter is not left to you. Your hormones carry a complete program—what acts to take from you, how much, what is needed, what can be taken. That inner hormonal mechanism—what you inherited from your father and mother—contains the whole program. It will function. You are not doing much; it only appears to you that you are doing. A program is unfolding within you, and the provisions are all built into it.
You can eat too much—that you can do; you can misuse food. You can drink too much alcohol. You can choose to fast for thirty days—that too you can do. But these are surface matters. Biology goes deeper, much deeper.
But I can misuse it psychologically—for mental imagination.
Those diversions arise only because of sex suppression. Not because of too much, but because we have built a sex-suppressive society. The inner bodily program of how much sex you need is not allowed to be fulfilled, so the suppressed sex begins to spread into many areas; it becomes mental.
That mentalization is not because you are overly sexual; it is because society does not give you the opportunity to be as sexual as your need is. And society binds you from all sides. Because of that bondage, sex cannot flow biologically, so it starts entering other planes—it shows up in your clothes, in your posture, your eating and drinking; everywhere; in your house design, your architecture; it seeps into painting, photography, cinema—everywhere. The total reason is simply that its natural outlet has been blocked on all sides; therefore it looks for other paths.

If someday we create a sex-free society, the sex act will become as ordinary as eating food or drinking water.
Will these arts end?
Another kind of art will arise. These arts will end—completely end—because they were born of sex repression. But other arts will come into being; man has an inner need to create art.
Suppose a man is hungry; tell him, “Paint!” He will paint bread. Keep a man hungry and ask him to paint—his hunger will spill onto the canvas. Now someone says, “If we give him food, painting will stop.” I would say: painting will not stop; only the bread-painting will cease. There is no reason for painting to stop; painting will find new planes, new paths.
If all sexual energy goes into the sex act, will there be any energy left to create art?
The truth is: the simpler, more natural, inwardly joyful the sex act is, the freer and more energized you will feel—freer and more energized. Sex is not destroying your energy. Sex is not destroying your energy.
So this tradition of celibacy for conserving energy—because of that...
Utterly unscientific.
Then the saint who uses his energy in normal sexual activity will be the better saint. Among today’s saints, the good one would be the one who leads a normal sexual life.
If we ever become scientifically intelligent about sex, far better saints than the old ones will be born.
Just as art will change, the tradition of saints will also change?
In every direction there will be change—a lot of change.
In fact, among our old saints, ninety out of a hundred—indeed ninety-nine—are such that, if we examined them, we would find them neurotic in some way. We would not find them healthy. Their whole regimen of practice is not even a little scientific; it is all unscientific. And what they have to do to suppress sex—we cannot imagine; it is not visible to us.

To repress sex, a person has to fast. When energy enters the body, sexual formation begins; he doesn’t want that to happen. So he must live at such a low level, so weakly, that the body’s needs are not fully met so that sexual energy does not arise. The poor fellow has to live in a sickly state—barely enough to sit and stand and speak; eat that little. If a little extra energy remains, it will convert into sex. So he remains at that level—and we say, “He is doing austerities!”

And what is his trouble? At that level he may prevent sexual energy from arising, but where will the sexual mind go? Sexual energy is physiological; its planning and arrangement are linked with the mind. The mind remains sexual. In this weak, feverish mind sexual images begin to form. There is no energy—he is not generating it—but feverish images begin to appear.

The stories you read about saints practicing austerities and being tormented by apsaras—these apsaras come from nowhere; they are his images. And to a feverish mind, an image appears so real that he feels a naked woman has come. No woman has come. No apsara has any business with any saint; there is no such being. It is his feverish mind. A man lying sick with fever for days sees many things.

All these attacks by devils and fairies—these are thoughts of his mind. And this weak man now has only enough strength to see images—he cannot do anything.

Then another question arises: it is said that those who have more sexual energy can achieve something special. There will be variety: some will have less energy, some more, some even more; a superman will have still more. And because that energy is suppressed, a superman can be produced. This is the tradition and belief...
This has been the belief so far. I don’t accept it. I say no superman is created by suppression. But there are dimensions of being a superman. If they open, the energy that was flowing toward sex begins to flow in new dimensions.

My question was: one with little sexual energy can become a good saint, and one with a lot can also become a saint. So sexual energy makes no difference?
No, it makes a difference. The reason is that among ten ordinary people, generally, the one who is healthier in the body will have more sexual energy. Among people of average health, whoever is healthier will be more filled with sexual energy. Because sexual energy is nothing but a distillation of your body’s health. In the ordinary person, nature is channeling his energy toward procreation. A healthy person has more, generally. That “more” is only evidence of health—evidence of health.

Whatever direction one goes, a healthy person can go farther than a weak one—because strength is needed everywhere. So a person of greater sexual energy is only a symbol that he is healthier. And right now his health is flowing as sexual energy. If tomorrow that health begins to flow into another dimension, then the source of energy we have is not sexual. Sexuality is only one doorway to the source of energy. The original source is just energy. Within us there is only energy. Sex is one door through which it flows. If we have not opened other doors, it will keep flowing through sex. And if it does not flow, that is dangerous—because accumulated energy becomes oppressive. It will knock on doors, break walls, create restlessness.

So if no other door is open, I say use the natural door nature has opened—the given door of sex. You did not open it; nature gave it. Around this reservoir of energy there are other doors too. If we open them, the energy is the same—but if it begins to flow through other doors, the likelihood of it going to the sex-door diminishes.

But if the doors that open still leave a need for sexual bliss—for instance, a man is painting, and a door opens which we may not recognize as a “door”—a man painting can attain as much absorption in an hour as someone can in the sexual act. We may not recognize it if painting means nothing to us. A man playing the sitar can reach the same absorption in an hour as one reaches in sex. We may not see it; to us he is merely striking strings. If he is only a technician, he will not reach there. But if he has inner feeling and he becomes absorbed with the sitar, then the way his energy is absorbed during that hour will reduce its capacity to move toward sex. And if he is engaged in a way that does not oppose sex and does not give him the kind of bliss sex gives, then he will return again and again to sex.

That is why I say meditation stands diametrically opposite to sex. The door of meditation is exactly the opposite door—and it gives more bliss than sex. If that door opens once, your entire energy starts flowing through it, and the sex-door naturally remains unused. You do not oppose sex; you do not shut it; you do not deny it shouting; you do not suppress it.

What we have is energy. It is not sexual, not mental, not bodily—energy as such. It flows in all directions. Bodily, it is the same; mental, the same; sexual, the same. Generally we have the door of sex, the door of mind, the door of body—these are the usual doors. Among them, the sex-door is the most pleasant—and there is a reason. Otherwise the sexual act would be impossible. If someday we produced human beings for whom the sexual act had no pleasure, only the bare act, no man or woman could be persuaded to do it. Because the act as such is absurd; there is nothing in it. Only the inner feeling of pleasure attached to it keeps this absurd act going. And that is why as soon as the act ends, one returns a little disturbed and anxious—because the pleasure has vanished and the act remains, and the act has no meaning. The act is so nonsensical it does not feel meaningful.
So hypnosis is making the act happen.
Yes, there is a natural hypnosis behind it—very powerfully imposed. Because of that hypnosis the door exists. If pleasure were not there, it would feel meaningless. And if deep hypnosis were not there, it would feel meaningless. If you find greater doors of bliss, this hypnosis begins to break.

Another point: even the phrase “sex energy” is somewhat misleading. The energy is total. When we say “sex energy,” both the Eastern and Western traditions take it to be something separate, and from that they conclude you can accomplish something special with it.
No—that is a wrong notion. Energy is total.
So should we say “sex energy” is an attitude, and by preserving it...
It is a doorway—one door. And those who spoke of preserving it were also under the same mistake; they too assumed there is no other door.
Then which energy should be preserved?
Energy should be preserved. But preserving energy by itself is meaningless. Energy should become creative. Let energy become more and more creative.
Like with eating: eat while you are hungry; if you eat more, you get indigestion and trouble. So the point is to restrain, to stop the energy...
No question of stopping energy. Only this: let energy find ever higher, ever more beautiful, ever more blissful channels. And if our energy finds a channel where bliss is real, not merely imagined—not due to hypnosis but truly there—if our energy succeeds in finding such a channel, then all our search moves that way. In that search many doors in us are closed. The human personality carries many potential doors that are not open.

There is natural hypnosis around the sex act. There is social hypnosis around “sexual energy,” as if all energy is sex—that is a wrong notion.
Then the very word brahmacharya becomes useless...
No, no, not the word useless; the old notion of brahmacharya becomes useless.
Its connection with sexual energy...
There is no connection at all. None.
Then we should talk only of energy, not of sex.
We should not talk of sex. But because our fixed notions exist, to fight them we have to speak the whole thing. The meaning of brahmacharya will take on a different sense.

In my mind, brahmacharya simply means—indeed the word means this—conduct like Brahman, conduct like the divine: to live as God would live, if there is God. That is the meaning of the word. It has nothing to do with semen. Neither the word nor the original concept is related to that. But what happens is: the greatest concepts appear in the popular mind with the smallest meanings.

“Semen is energy,” they say. Nothing of the kind.
Yes, nothing of the kind. Our energy has one diversion there. It is indispensable for nature, so nature uses it forcefully. If you fight nature, she will break you—shake you. She will make you do the work by force. Nature’s need is to keep the stream of life flowing. Whether you survive or not is not the issue; but the stream must not dry up. Therefore deep hypnosis is attached to sex.

Only in one situation does a person become free of this—and nature herself frees him at once—when the stream of life is transferred to a plane higher than the bodily plane. Then the pull, the gravitation of sex, simply disappears. I call that brahmacharya.

I do not take brahmacharya to mean someone has stopped sex and thus become celibate. That person is merely a blocked sexual being—only obstructed sex-energy. There are two forms: obstructed sex-energy and flowing sex-energy. Obstructed sex-energy is more dangerous than flowing. Flowing is at least natural; obstruction is entirely unnatural. There is a third state: not obstructed, but a new door has been found. The day all energy begins to flow toward the divine, the day it is directed entirely toward Brahman, then it does not flow anywhere else. There is no suppression in this—no idea, no willful thought.

No, this is social hypnosis. But the notion that “sexual energy” is sexual as such is found in all the books—Ayurveda, the Vedas...
All have held that notion. It is completely wrong.
Your view is the exact opposite—that it is just energy.
Completely opposite. What we have is only energy.
Then all these questions collapse. The whole thing has to be understood anew.
We must speak the whole thing. In fact, let’s do this: next time keep a whole series only on brahmacharya—four talks and four question-answers.