Ek Ek Kadam #5
Available in:
Read in Original Hindi (मूल हिन्दी)
Questions in this Discourse
The thing is, I haven’t come to take an interview; I’ve come to understand something—so that there’s no mistake in what I’m thinking of writing about you. So first I want to ask you: what is truth?
Truth is not a thing; truth is a realization. And the realization is not of some thing, but of oneself. Our unfamiliarity with ourselves—that is what I call untruth. And when we come to know ourselves, that I call truth. Other than the self, how could anything be true for me? Yet the day a person knows himself in his totality, on that day no difference remains for him between himself and the rest.
So I call untruth the state of not knowing oneself, and truth the state of knowing oneself.
But ordinarily it is thought that truth is some thing that I will come to know, that truth is an object. Truth is not a thing, not an object. Truth is not somewhere that I will go and obtain it. I myself am truth. But this “I am” is unknown to me—that is the state of untruth.
So I call untruth the state of not knowing oneself, and truth the state of knowing oneself.
But ordinarily it is thought that truth is some thing that I will come to know, that truth is an object. Truth is not a thing, not an object. Truth is not somewhere that I will go and obtain it. I myself am truth. But this “I am” is unknown to me—that is the state of untruth.
There is a knife, a blade. Boys play with it; we warn them, "Hey, you'll get hurt." When they do get hurt, from their experience we too understand that if you fool around with a knife you get cut. So that counts as truth, doesn't it? From their experience I have learned that this is what happens when you play with a knife.
That is not Truth; it is only a fact. A fact, not Truth. It is merely a fact that if a knife strikes you, you are wounded. That is a fact. When a knife and a hand collide, pain begins—that is a fact. In some situations, the collision of knife and hand can also remove pain. If there is a boil, cutting with a knife can relieve the pain—that is another fact.
The meaning of Truth… let me tell you an incident; it will make it clear. In the last world war, in France, a prisoner was injured in his leg. The pain was so intense that they kept him unconscious. At night they operated and amputated the entire leg. In the morning, when he regained consciousness, he started saying again, “My big toe is hurting terribly.” There was no toe. The doctors were very puzzled: how can there be pain in a toe that does not exist? For pain, the toe should be there. After much investigation they found that the nerve which used to twitch when the toe hurt—and by which the brain registered pain—was still twitching. The toe was gone, but the nerve was firing, and the pain continued. Now, this pain is not Truth; it is only a fact.
A fact means that which can change, which could be otherwise, of which the opposite is also possible—such things are what, in the practical world, are called truth. But the Truth I am speaking of, the Truth Buddha speaks of, Shankara speaks of—that Truth is not this. They speak of the Truth that, ultimately, I am; that which can never change; that which will always remain what it was, that which is always what it is, that which never changes. That whose changing is impossible—that is Truth. And that which keeps changing… Yesterday I was a child—that was a fact; today I have become young—that fact has changed. Today I am young—this is a fact; tomorrow I will grow old—that too will change. That which changes is a fact. So long as it does not change, it gives the illusion of truth.
That is why some people take facts to be truth. But the world of facts is not Truth; the world of facts is a stream of change. The realm of Truth is where there is no change at all. That is why I call it Truth.
The meaning of Truth… let me tell you an incident; it will make it clear. In the last world war, in France, a prisoner was injured in his leg. The pain was so intense that they kept him unconscious. At night they operated and amputated the entire leg. In the morning, when he regained consciousness, he started saying again, “My big toe is hurting terribly.” There was no toe. The doctors were very puzzled: how can there be pain in a toe that does not exist? For pain, the toe should be there. After much investigation they found that the nerve which used to twitch when the toe hurt—and by which the brain registered pain—was still twitching. The toe was gone, but the nerve was firing, and the pain continued. Now, this pain is not Truth; it is only a fact.
A fact means that which can change, which could be otherwise, of which the opposite is also possible—such things are what, in the practical world, are called truth. But the Truth I am speaking of, the Truth Buddha speaks of, Shankara speaks of—that Truth is not this. They speak of the Truth that, ultimately, I am; that which can never change; that which will always remain what it was, that which is always what it is, that which never changes. That whose changing is impossible—that is Truth. And that which keeps changing… Yesterday I was a child—that was a fact; today I have become young—that fact has changed. Today I am young—this is a fact; tomorrow I will grow old—that too will change. That which changes is a fact. So long as it does not change, it gives the illusion of truth.
That is why some people take facts to be truth. But the world of facts is not Truth; the world of facts is a stream of change. The realm of Truth is where there is no change at all. That is why I call it Truth.
Regarding women, your view is that there is neither wife nor sister—that one should relate to everyone in friendship and live together in the spirit of friendship. In my view, doing this will fracture the purity of society and increase misconduct, because friends are replaceable: today I may be someone’s friend, tomorrow I may not be.
In what you are saying, there are two or three points to understand.
First, I have not said there is no wife, no mother, no sister. I have not said that. I have only said that, as things stand, a woman has no standing in herself. She exists by being a wife, or a mother, or a sister. Beyond these, she has no being of her own. Only when she is related does she become something.
Second, I have said that all our relationships between man and woman are sexual. If I call a woman my mother, it simply means there is a sexual relationship between my father and her. If I call a woman my sister, it means that through the sexual relationship of two people, we both were born. If I call someone my daughter, it means there has been a sexual relationship between me and some woman from whom she was born.
At present, our very notion of the relationship between man and woman is totally sexual. It is purely lust-based. What I am saying is that a world should also develop in which a relationship between woman and man is possible without sex. I call that friendship.
So I am not asking the world to become sexual or to move into corruption. The world is already corrupt. And what you call “This is my mother,” and display as great respect—that is not reverence; it is a sexual relationship.
First, I have not said there is no wife, no mother, no sister. I have not said that. I have only said that, as things stand, a woman has no standing in herself. She exists by being a wife, or a mother, or a sister. Beyond these, she has no being of her own. Only when she is related does she become something.
Second, I have said that all our relationships between man and woman are sexual. If I call a woman my mother, it simply means there is a sexual relationship between my father and her. If I call a woman my sister, it means that through the sexual relationship of two people, we both were born. If I call someone my daughter, it means there has been a sexual relationship between me and some woman from whom she was born.
At present, our very notion of the relationship between man and woman is totally sexual. It is purely lust-based. What I am saying is that a world should also develop in which a relationship between woman and man is possible without sex. I call that friendship.
So I am not asking the world to become sexual or to move into corruption. The world is already corrupt. And what you call “This is my mother,” and display as great respect—that is not reverence; it is a sexual relationship.
That's right. For me, it's my mother.
No. For you, your mother is your mother only because she has a sexual relationship with your father; otherwise she would not be your mother for you. If tomorrow it were found that she had a relationship with another man, the whole matter would get messy.
What I am telling you is that our conception of the man–woman relationship so far is basically founded on sex. And in my view, it is not a sign of a healthy culture where all relations between men and women are sexual. There should be a relationship that is not sexual; I am calling that relationship friendship. What you are saying is something I have never said.
What I mean is that in a good world, men and women can also be friends. It is not necessary that they relate only through sex in order to relate at all. That demand belongs to an immoral society, to a society that is sexually very perverted—one point.
Second point: you say that if there is friendship between men and women, corruption will increase. You forget how much corruption there already is—and in the society you have produced till now, according to your morals and rules, how much corruption there is! My view is that corruption will decrease if friendship and closeness between men and women increase.
As it stands, whenever you relate to a woman or a man, nothing other than sex even occurs to you—because that has been the only relationship up to now. Another thing: a man knows his wife, his mother, his sister; beyond that he has no acquaintance with women. Therefore he becomes highly attracted toward women. He is never attracted to those he knows. A husband is least attracted to his own wife; the neighbor’s wife seems very attractive—because he does not know her. There is charm and relish in the unknown; in knowing, all attraction disappears.
I hold that the thrill you sense today between men and women in your society is produced by the wall between them. If, from childhood, men and women were so familiar—played together, jumped together, bathed together, swam together, grew up together—they would know each other so well that this sordid titillation would never arise. And this sordid titillation is the cause of corruption. Your society is thoroughly corrupt. If it is to be changed, its entire moral code must be transformed. The first moral rule to be transformed should be this: as much closeness as possible, as much friendship as possible, as few walls as possible between men and women; the more familiar they can become with each other, the more it will help create a healthy and moral society. In my view, what I am proposing will end corruption; what you believe produces corruption.
And third, regarding the question you have raised: as long as there is love between a man and a woman, the relationship is moral; the day love is not there, the relationship is utterly immoral. But your arrangement of marriage keeps that immoral relationship going—keeps it going. And because of that immoral relationship, neither of the two has their heart with the other, yet they are legally bound; both their minds are running elsewhere. The whole society is bound by law while everyone’s mind is wandering here and there. This creates an atmosphere of corruption.
My understanding is that apart from love there is no meaning to a man and a woman living together—no legal meaning. We should create a world in which love has the possibility to grow; only those who love should be willing to live together—and only for as long as they love. A moment after love is gone, there is no need to continue living together, because to live together after that is sinful. But we become frightened—you say our whole society will fall apart. I say, you...
What I am telling you is that our conception of the man–woman relationship so far is basically founded on sex. And in my view, it is not a sign of a healthy culture where all relations between men and women are sexual. There should be a relationship that is not sexual; I am calling that relationship friendship. What you are saying is something I have never said.
What I mean is that in a good world, men and women can also be friends. It is not necessary that they relate only through sex in order to relate at all. That demand belongs to an immoral society, to a society that is sexually very perverted—one point.
Second point: you say that if there is friendship between men and women, corruption will increase. You forget how much corruption there already is—and in the society you have produced till now, according to your morals and rules, how much corruption there is! My view is that corruption will decrease if friendship and closeness between men and women increase.
As it stands, whenever you relate to a woman or a man, nothing other than sex even occurs to you—because that has been the only relationship up to now. Another thing: a man knows his wife, his mother, his sister; beyond that he has no acquaintance with women. Therefore he becomes highly attracted toward women. He is never attracted to those he knows. A husband is least attracted to his own wife; the neighbor’s wife seems very attractive—because he does not know her. There is charm and relish in the unknown; in knowing, all attraction disappears.
I hold that the thrill you sense today between men and women in your society is produced by the wall between them. If, from childhood, men and women were so familiar—played together, jumped together, bathed together, swam together, grew up together—they would know each other so well that this sordid titillation would never arise. And this sordid titillation is the cause of corruption. Your society is thoroughly corrupt. If it is to be changed, its entire moral code must be transformed. The first moral rule to be transformed should be this: as much closeness as possible, as much friendship as possible, as few walls as possible between men and women; the more familiar they can become with each other, the more it will help create a healthy and moral society. In my view, what I am proposing will end corruption; what you believe produces corruption.
And third, regarding the question you have raised: as long as there is love between a man and a woman, the relationship is moral; the day love is not there, the relationship is utterly immoral. But your arrangement of marriage keeps that immoral relationship going—keeps it going. And because of that immoral relationship, neither of the two has their heart with the other, yet they are legally bound; both their minds are running elsewhere. The whole society is bound by law while everyone’s mind is wandering here and there. This creates an atmosphere of corruption.
My understanding is that apart from love there is no meaning to a man and a woman living together—no legal meaning. We should create a world in which love has the possibility to grow; only those who love should be willing to live together—and only for as long as they love. A moment after love is gone, there is no need to continue living together, because to live together after that is sinful. But we become frightened—you say our whole society will fall apart. I say, you...
Society is bound to break apart.
Yes. That is, the social order—its entirety—will collapse. I say it should collapse, because it deserves to. It is not worth saving. And for so long we have preserved it only out of the fear that it might fall apart. But they never even consider what they have gained by saving it. Neither life is happy, nor the family is happy, nor the parents are happy, nor the children are happy—no one is happy; it is nothing but quarrel, sorrow, and suffering. And religious people are taking great advantage of this pain and suffering. They want the misery to continue, because if the world becomes happy, religion will end.
Yes. That is, the social order—its entirety—will collapse. I say it should collapse, because it deserves to. It is not worth saving. And for so long we have preserved it only out of the fear that it might fall apart. But they never even consider what they have gained by saving it. Neither life is happy, nor the family is happy, nor the parents are happy, nor the children are happy—no one is happy; it is nothing but quarrel, sorrow, and suffering. And religious people are taking great advantage of this pain and suffering. They want the misery to continue, because if the world becomes happy, religion will end.
The unhappy seek religion. The more suffering there is in society, the more they go to touch the feet of some swami or sannyasin: “Show us a path to peace, show us some way to liberation,” because life is hell.
The religious conspiracy in the world does not want man to become happy.
Bertrand Russell said something very strange: he said that religion can remain only so long as there is suffering in the world. The day the social order becomes profoundly blissful, this religion cannot remain. Some other religion might be possible.
I do not agree with Bertrand Russell—only up to that point do I agree. My own statement is: there will be a completely different kind of religion. It will not be the religion of the unhappy; it will be the religion of the happy. It will be a different kind of religion.
This society must indeed break; this rotten, decayed society has to go. Whatever means can pierce it, from my side I do—and should do. So the question is not whether this society will break. It should break.
The religious conspiracy in the world does not want man to become happy.
Bertrand Russell said something very strange: he said that religion can remain only so long as there is suffering in the world. The day the social order becomes profoundly blissful, this religion cannot remain. Some other religion might be possible.
I do not agree with Bertrand Russell—only up to that point do I agree. My own statement is: there will be a completely different kind of religion. It will not be the religion of the unhappy; it will be the religion of the happy. It will be a different kind of religion.
This society must indeed break; this rotten, decayed society has to go. Whatever means can pierce it, from my side I do—and should do. So the question is not whether this society will break. It should break.
About what you said in Bombay regarding love—that all love is related to sex.
Yes, yes—that's exactly what I said.
So then sex and love are the same.
No, I didn’t say that. That’s the hurry you get into! If I say that a tree is related to a seed, you don’t take it to mean that the seed is the tree. You don’t sit under a seed to take shade. Nor do you chop wood from a seed and take it home. What do you do with a seed? When I say, “From the seed comes the tree,” I mean the seed is the first possibility from which the tree can develop. It may, it may not. If you lock the seed away in a safe, nothing will happen; it will remain a seed. Yes, sow it in the soil, water it, fence it, and it will become a tree. And the day it becomes a tree, it won’t even occur to us that this very tree was once a seed. And if someone points to a seed and says, “This seed you see is the banyan tree,” we will say, “You’re mad—how can this be a tree?”
No, I didn’t say that. That’s the hurry you get into! If I say that a tree is related to a seed, you don’t take it to mean that the seed is the tree. You don’t sit under a seed to take shade. Nor do you chop wood from a seed and take it home. What do you do with a seed? When I say, “From the seed comes the tree,” I mean the seed is the first possibility from which the tree can develop. It may, it may not. If you lock the seed away in a safe, nothing will happen; it will remain a seed. Yes, sow it in the soil, water it, fence it, and it will become a tree. And the day it becomes a tree, it won’t even occur to us that this very tree was once a seed. And if someone points to a seed and says, “This seed you see is the banyan tree,” we will say, “You’re mad—how can this be a tree?”
Within a human being, the sexual impulse is the sprouting of love—it is the seed. But I am not saying sex is love. This is exactly the quick conclusion you jump to. I am saying: the stirring of sex, the stirring of kama, is the seed of love. Yet it can also remain just sex and never become love. If it doesn’t find the right soil, it will remain sex. If it finds the right ground, it can be transformed into love.
What you call love, what we call love—let’s examine all of it. A mother loves her son: for what reason? We think it is a holy love. It is entirely a sexual matter. Why does a mother love her own son and not someone else’s? You follow me, don’t you? This son comes from her; he is the product of her sexuality, the growth of her sexual desire. He has come out of her sexual longing; hence love arises. Otherwise even that would not be love.
You go around proclaiming that a mother’s love is very pure. It is utterly sexual. And there is no love more sexual than a mother’s love. Our difficulty is that we do not want to understand the whole of it: that this being was born out of the mother’s sexuality—therefore there is a flavor, an attraction, because he has come from her sexual energy. A father has interest in his son because the son has come out of his sexuality. If the father were to discover that the child was sired by another man—and truly was the other’s son—enmity would arise; love and all would vanish in an instant. It is the very extension of the mind’s sexuality—its expansion.
A bird feeds her tiny chick; we say, “What great love is on display.” She feeds it because the chick is a transformation of her sexual desire. It is a piece of that desire. It is a part of her body. It is made from the very sexual organs from which she is made; therefore there is mutual attraction. All love—even a mother’s... You would be surprised: if a mother’s sex glands were removed, if a man’s sex glands were removed, and if a child were born and his sex glands were removed, love would never arise in that child. Love simply would not arise. You may not know that even anger has its glands.
Pavlov did experiments. A very fierce dog had its glands for anger removed. Then no matter how much you harass him, he will do everything else but he cannot become angry. He will move his limbs, pace around, but he cannot bark, cannot enter anger. Because the system that sustains anger—the gland—has been destroyed; it is broken.
The glandular system of sex is what works as the energy in your love. But I do not say sex is love. I say sex is the first ray. If it matures fully, if its flowering happens, then love becomes available in its fullness. And when love is available, it does not even occur that it was ever sex. Just as, looking at a tree, it never occurs that there was once such a tiny seed. When love fully blossoms, it does not occur that it has any connection with sex. Does a mother ever feel that her relationship with the son has anything sexual in it?
When a man truly loves a woman, it does not even cross his mind that the relationship is sexual. In the wholeness of love, one does not even notice it. And there is even this possibility: if love develops completely, it becomes absolutely asexual—that is, sex simply drops away. But its first journey begins with sex.
And that is what I have said: sex, ultimately developed, becomes love. Therefore, those who fight with sex never have love born in their lives.
Hence my view is: those whom you call brahmacharis—if they fight sex—love never arises in their lives. But if they transform sex, then in their lives so much love arises as is never seen in the life of a householder. Why? Because the householder’s sexual energy gets spent; only what remains can manifest as love. And in one whose sexual energy is not depleted but transformed, so much love manifests—it is beyond our imagination.
What I mean is that it too is the expansion of sexual energy. That is why people like Krishna or like Buddha are so filled with love. It is nothing else: the same energy, unspent, has become entirely love. Therefore, the tree of love that Buddha has, we do not. A father’s tree is so small that his sons can scarcely stand in its shade; and sometimes it is so small—if there are five sons, only one can stand beneath it, four fall outside the shade. As much energy as there is, that much transformation is possible. But under a person like Buddha, millions can stand; that tree goes on spreading without end, because the energy has not been expended—it has all risen to become the tree.
So what I am saying is: understand sex, and understand the process of transforming sex. Do not be nervous about sex, do not be afraid of it, do not run away. Because it is the very source of life. And that source of life is what has to be transformed.
What you call love, what we call love—let’s examine all of it. A mother loves her son: for what reason? We think it is a holy love. It is entirely a sexual matter. Why does a mother love her own son and not someone else’s? You follow me, don’t you? This son comes from her; he is the product of her sexuality, the growth of her sexual desire. He has come out of her sexual longing; hence love arises. Otherwise even that would not be love.
You go around proclaiming that a mother’s love is very pure. It is utterly sexual. And there is no love more sexual than a mother’s love. Our difficulty is that we do not want to understand the whole of it: that this being was born out of the mother’s sexuality—therefore there is a flavor, an attraction, because he has come from her sexual energy. A father has interest in his son because the son has come out of his sexuality. If the father were to discover that the child was sired by another man—and truly was the other’s son—enmity would arise; love and all would vanish in an instant. It is the very extension of the mind’s sexuality—its expansion.
A bird feeds her tiny chick; we say, “What great love is on display.” She feeds it because the chick is a transformation of her sexual desire. It is a piece of that desire. It is a part of her body. It is made from the very sexual organs from which she is made; therefore there is mutual attraction. All love—even a mother’s... You would be surprised: if a mother’s sex glands were removed, if a man’s sex glands were removed, and if a child were born and his sex glands were removed, love would never arise in that child. Love simply would not arise. You may not know that even anger has its glands.
Pavlov did experiments. A very fierce dog had its glands for anger removed. Then no matter how much you harass him, he will do everything else but he cannot become angry. He will move his limbs, pace around, but he cannot bark, cannot enter anger. Because the system that sustains anger—the gland—has been destroyed; it is broken.
The glandular system of sex is what works as the energy in your love. But I do not say sex is love. I say sex is the first ray. If it matures fully, if its flowering happens, then love becomes available in its fullness. And when love is available, it does not even occur that it was ever sex. Just as, looking at a tree, it never occurs that there was once such a tiny seed. When love fully blossoms, it does not occur that it has any connection with sex. Does a mother ever feel that her relationship with the son has anything sexual in it?
When a man truly loves a woman, it does not even cross his mind that the relationship is sexual. In the wholeness of love, one does not even notice it. And there is even this possibility: if love develops completely, it becomes absolutely asexual—that is, sex simply drops away. But its first journey begins with sex.
And that is what I have said: sex, ultimately developed, becomes love. Therefore, those who fight with sex never have love born in their lives.
Hence my view is: those whom you call brahmacharis—if they fight sex—love never arises in their lives. But if they transform sex, then in their lives so much love arises as is never seen in the life of a householder. Why? Because the householder’s sexual energy gets spent; only what remains can manifest as love. And in one whose sexual energy is not depleted but transformed, so much love manifests—it is beyond our imagination.
What I mean is that it too is the expansion of sexual energy. That is why people like Krishna or like Buddha are so filled with love. It is nothing else: the same energy, unspent, has become entirely love. Therefore, the tree of love that Buddha has, we do not. A father’s tree is so small that his sons can scarcely stand in its shade; and sometimes it is so small—if there are five sons, only one can stand beneath it, four fall outside the shade. As much energy as there is, that much transformation is possible. But under a person like Buddha, millions can stand; that tree goes on spreading without end, because the energy has not been expended—it has all risen to become the tree.
So what I am saying is: understand sex, and understand the process of transforming sex. Do not be nervous about sex, do not be afraid of it, do not run away. Because it is the very source of life. And that source of life is what has to be transformed.
No one really runs away from sex, because for those who live in the world, it is their dharma to keep the world going.
Who told you that?
After marriage, if you had lived in the world, then all the people who...
There is no religion-shmeligion. There is no religion-shmeligion, nor any duty. You can’t get away without having children. No religion-shmeligion. Nor is it a duty. These are all deceptive words.
"...a celibate cannot father children."
Let me tell you, let me tell you: it is neither your religion nor your duty; it is your compulsion. And you dress your compulsions in fine words. And don’t think you have children to keep the world going—children happen as a by-product. You had gone to do something else; you hadn’t gone there to make babies.
But Swamiji, the by-product, at least for someone...
What I mean is, what I mean is that in the world a hundred men beget children; perhaps one man makes love consciously for the sake of a child. Ninety-nine men have sex, and children just happen.
Yes, that is correct. Your religion and all that—it isn’t really yours. These are tricks the scriptures use—deeply dishonest. They teach people things that aren’t true. If your son were to come and say, “I created you,” you would get angry. And yet when you tell your son, “I created you,” the truth is you never even intended to create him. It was purely a happening. You were enjoying sex; the poor fellow came in between. And you have no idea how many sons were lost in the process of his coming. In a lifetime a man can have intercourse at least four thousand times. And in a single act, as many sperm cells as are released—at least ten million—could become children. An ordinary man can have intercourse about four thousand times; you could have produced forty billion children. The ones who are born are not the only ones; there were many more possibilities of birth that were lost, and you know nothing of them. Had this one also been lost, you would never have known. You never desired it, never even thought of it; you were doing something else, and this child arrived in the bargain. After he arrives, religions start lecturing about duties and all that, and the false chatter goes on. But now children will begin to understand this nonsense; it won’t last much longer.
All I am saying is that we should understand the truth of things. The truth is that there is a sexual instinct in man. The truth is that woman and man want to meet. To condemn this meeting, to call it sin, to demean it with disgust—that is what has happened up to now. Or to raise it up, make it sacred, spiritualize it, ennoble it—that has not yet happened. That is what should happen; that is my whole point.
So far, it has been such that if I have sex with any woman other than my wife, it is considered wrong.
It is considered wrong—why is it considered wrong? Have you ever thought about it?
This is not a right. No, no, no. This is just a matter of our convention, isn’t it? You will notice it has been distorted by the sexual mind. It is nothing very sacred. The rule you framed—do not have intercourse with another man’s wife—exists so that no one else will have intercourse with your wife. The whole rule is to ensure that the child born of the wife is authentically mine; there should be no mix-up, it should not come from someone else’s seed. Man wants a decisive, authentic assurance for his sexuality that “it is mine.” And there are two reasons for wanting that authenticity—and both are purely animalistic, not lofty reasons.
The first reason is that if the child has not come from him, he will never be able to love him. He needs firm assurance; only then will his energy of love blossom. Otherwise it cannot bloom. He may form a relationship, but it will be difficult; love will not blossom toward him. One. That is the first reason.
And the second reason is that his property should go to his own offspring; it should not go to someone else. So private property and sexuality—these, in sum, are the two reasons for which the rule was made: have intercourse only with your own wife; with anyone else is a great sin and the gateway to a great hell.
I am not saying: go and do it with another. I am not saying that. I am saying that to have intercourse with someone you do not love is sin—even if she is your own wife. I am speaking a higher truth: to have intercourse with someone you do not love is sin—even if she is your wife. And with the one you love, to have intercourse is virtue. But to have intercourse means you are ready to take full responsibility for her. She becomes your wife. What does it mean to become a wife? That you are willing to take all responsibility.
And the second reason is that his property should go to his own offspring; it should not go to someone else. So private property and sexuality—these, in sum, are the two reasons for which the rule was made: have intercourse only with your own wife; with anyone else is a great sin and the gateway to a great hell.
I am not saying: go and do it with another. I am not saying that. I am saying that to have intercourse with someone you do not love is sin—even if she is your own wife. I am speaking a higher truth: to have intercourse with someone you do not love is sin—even if she is your wife. And with the one you love, to have intercourse is virtue. But to have intercourse means you are ready to take full responsibility for her. She becomes your wife. What does it mean to become a wife? That you are willing to take all responsibility.
If I fall in love with a woman who is married to someone else and living in his house, how can I be with her?
This household is wrong. This is a wrong house. If a woman is living in someone’s house and you fall in love with her, it means, first, that there is no love in the house where she is living; second, that love is happening with you.
Society should be such that this house can change. This wife should come to you. Right now two sins are happening: your love is being turned into a sin, and sin is happening where she is living as well. There is no need to run a double sin. Society should be so fluid that this change can happen—husbands and wives can change, and change simply. There is no need for so much commotion and conflict—drag it through the courts, take three years to get a certificate, then abuse her as an adulteress, and only then change. All this is utterly illegitimate. It should be as simple as this: two people want to separate. Even one person can go and…
In Russia they have done it. It’s quite something—and courageous. Now in Russia, to grant a divorce, it isn’t even necessary for both parties to be present. If either one of the two goes to the magistrate and submits in writing, “We want to end this,” the matter is finished. There is no question of quarrel or fuss.
So your family should not be rigid; in my view it should be fluid. It should have the capacity to transform. It isn’t necessary that it must transform, but only then will you know how many families are true—when your family system is fluid. Right now the whole thing is false, through and through.
If I were to ask you about these hundred families—and if they were given complete freedom, without any condemnation for changing partners—how many would actually choose to stay as they are? Then you would see how much “morality” there really is. At present they don’t change because they cannot change, and they stand wrapped in a cloak of morality.
This is no morality. And the mind will keep changing. You can restrain the body by law; the law says: this wife to whom you have been bound, beyond her you shall have no relation with any other woman. But the mind will go on forming relationships. It will go on peeping out the window, looking into other people’s houses; it will go on forming relationships. And the relationships the mind forms will become a source of sorrow, of pain.
My whole point is this: the entire arrangement of human life has become subject to rethinking. The family is up for rethinking; sexual relationships are up for rethinking; the relationships of mother–son and father–son are up for rethinking. These relationships have decayed. Until now the notion was…
In Israel they experimented with the kibbutz, and the results were astonishing. Until now people believed that if children were not brought up with their parents, then love could not develop between parents and children—because it had never been tested. But when they experimented in the kibbutzim in Israel, they were shocked: the love between kibbutz-raised children and their parents is greater than what is ever found between children raised at home and their parents. There is a reason. When a child lives with the mother twenty-four hours a day, she also hits, scolds, quarrels; then two opposing tendencies arise together in the child—which is the most dangerous thing. He sometimes hates his mother and thinks, “Why not kill her? Why not run away? She is my enemy.” Sometimes he loves the mother, feels she is sacred, that there is no one greater; he lays his head in her lap and she strokes him.
Toward a single object two opposite tendencies arise: both hatred and love. And this is so dangerous—if love and hate arise toward the same person, the mind is in conflict forever. Later, whoever he loves will carry along the association of hate, because love and hate have become linked. The woman he loves, he will also hate. From time to time he will think of cutting her throat, of ruining her, killing her. And the woman who comes to him is also carrying her double tendencies.
In the kibbutz experiment they did this: as soon as the child begins to be conscious, they raise him in a community hall. The mother comes to nurse him three or four times, as needed. They have built a community hall—fields all around, the hall in the middle. The women are working in the fields; each child has a flag. When a child begins to cry, his flag is raised at the hall; the mother sees her flag, comes, and feeds the child. The child knows only the pleasant aspect of the mother—she comes to nurse him, to love him. He never comes to know the unpleasant aspect of the mother. He grows up. The second advantage is: the child grows up among children.
Raising children among old people creates immense harm. There is never any equality between them. The elders are the masters of the house and children have to grow up under them. The elders were produced by a society that has long since died, while the children will have to live in a society that has not yet been born. This creates such tension in the child’s mind: his mind is shaped by a society that is dead, and he will live in a society that is still to come. His mind will live in perpetual discomfort.
So children grow up among children. And the nurses who look after them—no nurse looks after a child for more than three months; every three months the nurse is changed. Their view is that the concept of love should not get fixed on any one person. If it gets fixed on one person, it becomes very difficult to transfer it to another. And that is exactly the difficulty: the son grows up with his mother, he learns to love the mother; after twenty years he has to love another woman—this is a very difficult matter. If by chance he finds a woman exactly like his mother, fine—but where will he find a woman like his mother? And then the struggle begins. His love got fixed on a single woman.
So in the kibbutz they change the nurses every three months, so that his mind does not remain fixed on one woman. Across ten, twenty-five, forty, a hundred, two hundred women pass near him over the years—there is no fixed woman in his mind. He can relate to any woman with ease—his mind is fluid, it does not get stuck. And another benefit: by the time he is in university and returns home for holidays, he will stay with his parents for a day or two at most. When a boy comes home for a day or two, there is neither quarrel nor conflict nor disturbance; he sees only the pleasant aspect of his parents.
So the marvel is that children raised in the kibbutz give their parents more respect and more love than any other children ever do. And until now our belief was the opposite.
I am saying this as an example. My point is that every aspect of life has rotted; it is decayed. We need the courage to reconsider each aspect and to experiment. That is why I strike at any aspect—no matter which one it is. A blow hurts, because the matter is tied up. If I say that raising a child with the mother is dangerous, the mother will be angry, the children will be angry, the father will be angry. But it is dangerous—absolutely dangerous. And as I was saying earlier, if children can be raised apart from their parents, society will never become static; it will remain dynamic. Because the old mind of the parents will not be able to grip the children—at least not so tightly. And life will be happier.
A friend of mine went to Israel. I told him, “Do visit a kibbutz and tell me everything.” He reached a community hall in the evening and was astonished! He said, “I had never seen in my life that even this is possible!” Children were eating in the community hall—forty or fifty children perhaps. Children were serving, children were eating. They were wearing bright, colorful clothes. Children were dancing on the tables while food was being served on the very tables; some little ones were doing the twist on the tables. All around, children were playing, eating, playing, dancing.
He said, “For the first time in my life I saw that one can eat like this too.” But there was not a single adult inside to stop them. They were doing whatever they wanted to do. The children themselves—those a little older—were looking after the younger ones. They weren’t much older, so authority never arose; a child gives a little respect to someone slightly older, but not the kind that says, “Only you know everything.” The little one also knows that the other only knows a little. So that authoritarian idea—“we know”—never enters his mind.
He saw that they ate for hours. The teachers watched from a distance but did not go in. He asked them, and they said, “No, we don’t stop them while they eat. Let them enjoy—let them eat as they like. We are old; we cannot eat with such joy. And if we go in we will interfere with their joy: Stop this noise! What are you doing? So much food will be wasted! But food being wasted is not as bad as eating while sitting gloomily. Right now they are children—let them play, sing, eat.”
Now when these children sit at dining tables twenty years from now, their tables will not be as sad as ours. Even twenty years is not such a long time. This joy will travel with them through life.
So the entire rotten framework we have given to life is wrong, in a way. It has to be uprooted—and each of its roots broken.
Society should be such that this house can change. This wife should come to you. Right now two sins are happening: your love is being turned into a sin, and sin is happening where she is living as well. There is no need to run a double sin. Society should be so fluid that this change can happen—husbands and wives can change, and change simply. There is no need for so much commotion and conflict—drag it through the courts, take three years to get a certificate, then abuse her as an adulteress, and only then change. All this is utterly illegitimate. It should be as simple as this: two people want to separate. Even one person can go and…
In Russia they have done it. It’s quite something—and courageous. Now in Russia, to grant a divorce, it isn’t even necessary for both parties to be present. If either one of the two goes to the magistrate and submits in writing, “We want to end this,” the matter is finished. There is no question of quarrel or fuss.
So your family should not be rigid; in my view it should be fluid. It should have the capacity to transform. It isn’t necessary that it must transform, but only then will you know how many families are true—when your family system is fluid. Right now the whole thing is false, through and through.
If I were to ask you about these hundred families—and if they were given complete freedom, without any condemnation for changing partners—how many would actually choose to stay as they are? Then you would see how much “morality” there really is. At present they don’t change because they cannot change, and they stand wrapped in a cloak of morality.
This is no morality. And the mind will keep changing. You can restrain the body by law; the law says: this wife to whom you have been bound, beyond her you shall have no relation with any other woman. But the mind will go on forming relationships. It will go on peeping out the window, looking into other people’s houses; it will go on forming relationships. And the relationships the mind forms will become a source of sorrow, of pain.
My whole point is this: the entire arrangement of human life has become subject to rethinking. The family is up for rethinking; sexual relationships are up for rethinking; the relationships of mother–son and father–son are up for rethinking. These relationships have decayed. Until now the notion was…
In Israel they experimented with the kibbutz, and the results were astonishing. Until now people believed that if children were not brought up with their parents, then love could not develop between parents and children—because it had never been tested. But when they experimented in the kibbutzim in Israel, they were shocked: the love between kibbutz-raised children and their parents is greater than what is ever found between children raised at home and their parents. There is a reason. When a child lives with the mother twenty-four hours a day, she also hits, scolds, quarrels; then two opposing tendencies arise together in the child—which is the most dangerous thing. He sometimes hates his mother and thinks, “Why not kill her? Why not run away? She is my enemy.” Sometimes he loves the mother, feels she is sacred, that there is no one greater; he lays his head in her lap and she strokes him.
Toward a single object two opposite tendencies arise: both hatred and love. And this is so dangerous—if love and hate arise toward the same person, the mind is in conflict forever. Later, whoever he loves will carry along the association of hate, because love and hate have become linked. The woman he loves, he will also hate. From time to time he will think of cutting her throat, of ruining her, killing her. And the woman who comes to him is also carrying her double tendencies.
In the kibbutz experiment they did this: as soon as the child begins to be conscious, they raise him in a community hall. The mother comes to nurse him three or four times, as needed. They have built a community hall—fields all around, the hall in the middle. The women are working in the fields; each child has a flag. When a child begins to cry, his flag is raised at the hall; the mother sees her flag, comes, and feeds the child. The child knows only the pleasant aspect of the mother—she comes to nurse him, to love him. He never comes to know the unpleasant aspect of the mother. He grows up. The second advantage is: the child grows up among children.
Raising children among old people creates immense harm. There is never any equality between them. The elders are the masters of the house and children have to grow up under them. The elders were produced by a society that has long since died, while the children will have to live in a society that has not yet been born. This creates such tension in the child’s mind: his mind is shaped by a society that is dead, and he will live in a society that is still to come. His mind will live in perpetual discomfort.
So children grow up among children. And the nurses who look after them—no nurse looks after a child for more than three months; every three months the nurse is changed. Their view is that the concept of love should not get fixed on any one person. If it gets fixed on one person, it becomes very difficult to transfer it to another. And that is exactly the difficulty: the son grows up with his mother, he learns to love the mother; after twenty years he has to love another woman—this is a very difficult matter. If by chance he finds a woman exactly like his mother, fine—but where will he find a woman like his mother? And then the struggle begins. His love got fixed on a single woman.
So in the kibbutz they change the nurses every three months, so that his mind does not remain fixed on one woman. Across ten, twenty-five, forty, a hundred, two hundred women pass near him over the years—there is no fixed woman in his mind. He can relate to any woman with ease—his mind is fluid, it does not get stuck. And another benefit: by the time he is in university and returns home for holidays, he will stay with his parents for a day or two at most. When a boy comes home for a day or two, there is neither quarrel nor conflict nor disturbance; he sees only the pleasant aspect of his parents.
So the marvel is that children raised in the kibbutz give their parents more respect and more love than any other children ever do. And until now our belief was the opposite.
I am saying this as an example. My point is that every aspect of life has rotted; it is decayed. We need the courage to reconsider each aspect and to experiment. That is why I strike at any aspect—no matter which one it is. A blow hurts, because the matter is tied up. If I say that raising a child with the mother is dangerous, the mother will be angry, the children will be angry, the father will be angry. But it is dangerous—absolutely dangerous. And as I was saying earlier, if children can be raised apart from their parents, society will never become static; it will remain dynamic. Because the old mind of the parents will not be able to grip the children—at least not so tightly. And life will be happier.
A friend of mine went to Israel. I told him, “Do visit a kibbutz and tell me everything.” He reached a community hall in the evening and was astonished! He said, “I had never seen in my life that even this is possible!” Children were eating in the community hall—forty or fifty children perhaps. Children were serving, children were eating. They were wearing bright, colorful clothes. Children were dancing on the tables while food was being served on the very tables; some little ones were doing the twist on the tables. All around, children were playing, eating, playing, dancing.
He said, “For the first time in my life I saw that one can eat like this too.” But there was not a single adult inside to stop them. They were doing whatever they wanted to do. The children themselves—those a little older—were looking after the younger ones. They weren’t much older, so authority never arose; a child gives a little respect to someone slightly older, but not the kind that says, “Only you know everything.” The little one also knows that the other only knows a little. So that authoritarian idea—“we know”—never enters his mind.
He saw that they ate for hours. The teachers watched from a distance but did not go in. He asked them, and they said, “No, we don’t stop them while they eat. Let them enjoy—let them eat as they like. We are old; we cannot eat with such joy. And if we go in we will interfere with their joy: Stop this noise! What are you doing? So much food will be wasted! But food being wasted is not as bad as eating while sitting gloomily. Right now they are children—let them play, sing, eat.”
Now when these children sit at dining tables twenty years from now, their tables will not be as sad as ours. Even twenty years is not such a long time. This joy will travel with them through life.
So the entire rotten framework we have given to life is wrong, in a way. It has to be uprooted—and each of its roots broken.
So then, how do you conceive of the formation of society?
Right now I am not thinking of creation; right now I am thinking of destruction.
Questioner:
But after destruction there should be creation, shouldn’t there?
As I have said—for example, I have said that the relationship between parents and children should be broken, and there should be an arrangement in which children’s contact with parents is kept to a minimum... only a pleasant contact. Let that be the positive part of it. In this way, point by point...
Questioner:
But after destruction there should be creation, shouldn’t there?
As I have said—for example, I have said that the relationship between parents and children should be broken, and there should be an arrangement in which children’s contact with parents is kept to a minimum... only a pleasant contact. Let that be the positive part of it. In this way, point by point...