In one who has mastered the self and is serene, the Supreme Self abides composed.
In cold and heat, in pleasure and pain, and in honor and dishonor alike. || 7 ||
Geeta Darshan #4
Available in:
Read in Original Hindi (मूल हिन्दी)
Sutra (Original)
जितात्मनः प्रशान्तस्य परमात्मा समाहितः।
शीतोष्णसुखदुःखेषु तथा मानापमानयोः।। 7।।
शीतोष्णसुखदुःखेषु तथा मानापमानयोः।। 7।।
Transliteration:
jitātmanaḥ praśāntasya paramātmā samāhitaḥ|
śītoṣṇasukhaduḥkheṣu tathā mānāpamānayoḥ|| 7||
jitātmanaḥ praśāntasya paramātmā samāhitaḥ|
śītoṣṇasukhaduḥkheṣu tathā mānāpamānayoḥ|| 7||
Translation (Meaning)
Questions in this Discourse
Osho, in this verse a word appears: jitātmanaḥ—one who has conquered his self. What does “conquering” mean in relation to the soul? Please clarify.
“One who has conquered himself, conquered his own soul”—what will that mean?
Two meanings are worth taking into account. First: we haven’t even conquered ourselves, yet we go on making plans to conquer everything. We haven’t even conquered ourselves! And who could be more deranged than the person who, without conquering himself, plans to conquer all? If one has to set out on the journey of victory, one should first win oneself. What does it mean that we have not conquered ourselves?
If I say to you, “Do not get angry today,” do you have enough power over yourself not to be angry today? That’s already a big thing. If I say only this much, “Close your eyes for five minutes and do not allow the word ‘Ram’ to enter within,” then you will find out how much ownership you actually have over yourself! Close your eyes, and I say: for five minutes let the word Ram not enter your mind. You don’t have even that much strength to stop the word Ram from coming in. In these five minutes it will come more than it ever did in your life! Suddenly the japa of Ram will begin! The japa may do you some good—but your own defeat will stand proven. We do not have even a grain of control over ourselves.
So “one who has conquered his own soul.” Here, one meaning of “soul” is one’s own authority; ownership over one’s own being.
Examine and you will discover your slavery—how weak we are! How weak we are! Our weakness is written everywhere: on every doorway, on every sense, on every disposition, on every desire, on every thought. Deceiving oneself won’t help.
Thus the first reminder is: conquer yourself. One meaning of atman is “oneself.” And “he who has conquered the atman”—there is a second, deeper meaning: he who has known himself. Because knowing becomes conquering. Knowledge is victory. Self-knowledge is self-victory.
So one meaning is that our personality becomes so free that I can say, “My strength, my control, is over me. You can rely on me. I can rely on myself.”
But can you? If you think about it, you will find: can you really rely on yourself? You tell someone, “I will love you tomorrow too.” Have you ever thought—this is a slave making a promise. Tomorrow? Will you be able to love tomorrow? Think a little more. And if tomorrow love evaporates like camphor into the sky, what way will you have to bring it back?
Look at it this way: you have fallen in love with someone today; if I say to you, “For one hour, do not love this person,” if you are capable of saying, “All right, for this one hour in my life there will be no hour of loving this person,” then one could trust that tomorrow too, when love flies away, you will still be able to fulfill the promise to love. Otherwise, you cannot be trusted. Right now you’ll say, “How can it be that I don’t love?” Tomorrow you will say, “How can it be that I do love?” Helpless, bound.
So the first, primary, outer meaning is: conquer yourself in the sense that I can rely on myself. The second meaning is: know yourself.
Mahavira has said: he who has known himself has also conquered. Hence with Mahavira is joined the word Jina—Jina means “the conqueror.” Because having known, he has conquered. How can we conquer what we don’t even know? To conquer something without knowing it is impossible. Knowledge is victory. Whatever we know, we become its master.
In the second sense, we are self-ignorant. We have no idea who I am! We know name and address, which have nothing to do with our being. We have no idea who I am! No news at all. To call someone “self-possessed” who does not even know who he is would be merely playing with words.
There was a fakir, Gurdjieff. He used to say: not everyone has a soul. When he first said it, there was a great stir. People said, “No scripture says this. All scriptures say there is a soul in everyone. You say not everyone has a soul!” Gurdjieff would say: for one who does not even know it, being or not being are the same. Suppose a man says, “There is a treasure in my house.” Ask him, “Where is it?” He says, “I don’t know.” Then what difference is there between being and not being? None at all—virtually no difference.
So Gurdjieff used to say, “I do not accept that everyone has a soul,” and I say he was right. The soul is within only for one who knows it.
I’ve heard of a man who, in great panic, stood by the roadside feeling all his pockets. A couple of people gathered, seeing his agitation. He would put his hand in this pocket, then that one, leaving only the upper pocket of his coat untouched. Finally someone asked, “Sir, you’ve checked your pockets several times and look quite distressed; there are drops of sweat—what’s the matter?” The man said, “My wallet is lost. I’ve checked every pocket except one.” They asked, “Why not check that one as well?” He said, “I’m afraid—if it isn’t there either? That’s why I’m checking everywhere else!”
We are afraid to go within for the same reason—what if the soul isn’t there? So we sit outside reading books and feel very relieved: “There is a soul within, there is God within, there are fountains of nectar, streams of bliss are flowing.” Reading a book outside, we become very assured. But we never put our hand into the pocket within—what if it isn’t there? Then one more trust would be shattered, one more hope fragmented. One reassurance by which all sorrows could be borne, by whose support we could go on feeling all the other pockets—“If I don’t find it here, never mind, I’ll surely find it there!”—what if that too breaks? Out of that fear we don’t even peek within.
Ātmajayī means: the person who can look within with wide-open eyes. He knows it is there; he has seen it is there; he has found it is there. Now he is fearless. Now even if you thrust a dagger into his chest, he is fearless, because he knows that dagger cannot enter the one he has come to know. Now if death stands at his door, he will embrace it, because he knows that what he has known within cannot in any way be touched by death. Now if you hurl abuses and insult him, he will laugh, because he knows: your abuses cannot reach him, your insults cannot reach what he is. Now he is victorious—now he is Jina.
So, in the outer sense: we cannot rely on ourselves even for anything of our own; our tendencies drag us wherever they will; we are heteronomous, subjugated. And in this deeper sense: we have no idea who we are. Therefore Krishna says: the one who is ātmajayī, who has conquered the self—God is ever established in him.
ज्ञानविज्ञानतृप्तात्मा कूटस्थो विजितेन्द्रियः।
युक्त इच्युच्यते योगी समलोष्टाश्मकाञ्चनः।। 8।।
And whose inner being is sated with knowledge and science, whose state is changeless and free of perturbation, whose senses are well conquered, and to whom earth, stone, and gold are alike—that yogi is called “yukta,” united, one who has attained the Divine.
In this shloka a few new directions are added to the previous aphorism: “One who is sated with knowledge and science.”
“Knowledge” means knowing oneself. “Science” means knowing the other. Science is the method of knowing the other; knowledge is the method of knowing oneself.
Krishna says, “Sated with knowledge and science.” What will that mean? Does it mean that one who is self-knowing, established in yoga, has become sated after knowing all of science?
Some have tried to take it so—this is mistaken. If that were the case, then here in India—where we produced many who were established in yoga—we would have discovered the essence of all the sciences. We did not. Then one yogi of ours would have completed the work of all the Einsteins, all the Newtons, all the Plancks—then there would have been no problem. Then we would have discovered the secret of the atom; we would have discovered the secret of the vast energies. Therefore whoever takes it so, takes it wrongly. That is not its meaning. Its meaning is deeper. That interpretation is very superficial; it is not deep.
“Whose soul is sated with all knowledge and science.”
Satiation by science means: curiosity has departed from his life. Curiosity—curiousness—has departed. In fact, curiosity is a sign of a very childish mind.
Think about it. The younger the age, the greater the curiosity—What is this like? What is that like? Why did this happen? Why didn’t that happen? The smaller the mind, the less the intelligence, the greater the curiosity.
Hence another amusing fact: just as children are full of curiosity, so too those civilizations that are childish give birth to science. Surprising as it may sound, the more childish a civilization is, the more scientific it becomes.
Europe or America are, in a certain sense, very childish, very much in childhood—hence scientific. Curiosity is heavy. What is on the moon? We must know! What is on Mars? We must know! Knowing, and knowing more—the curiosity has no end, because the world has no end.
Therefore if someone thinks, “When I know everything, then I’ll be satisfied,” he is mad. He will only go mad.
“Sated in knowledge and science”—what does that mean? It means: whose curiosity is gone; who has become so mature that he no longer asks, “Why is this so? Why is that so?” A mature person says, “It is so.”
Understand the difference. Children ask, “Why is it so?” Why are leaves green? Why is the rose red? Why are there stars in the sky? The mature person says, “It is so—this is so.” He says, “It is so,” because if leaves were yellow you’d ask, “Why are they yellow?” If trees had no leaves you would ask, “Why are there no leaves?”
So, in the outer sense: we cannot rely on ourselves even for anything of our own; our tendencies drag us wherever they will; we are heteronomous, subjugated. And in this deeper sense: we have no idea who we are. Therefore Krishna says: the one who is ātmajayī, who has conquered the self—God is ever established in him.
ज्ञानविज्ञानतृप्तात्मा कूटस्थो विजितेन्द्रियः।
युक्त इच्युच्यते योगी समलोष्टाश्मकाञ्चनः।। 8।।
And whose inner being is sated with knowledge and science, whose state is changeless and free of perturbation, whose senses are well conquered, and to whom earth, stone, and gold are alike—that yogi is called “yukta,” united, one who has attained the Divine.
In this shloka a few new directions are added to the previous aphorism: “One who is sated with knowledge and science.”
“Knowledge” means knowing oneself. “Science” means knowing the other. Science is the method of knowing the other; knowledge is the method of knowing oneself.
Krishna says, “Sated with knowledge and science.” What will that mean? Does it mean that one who is self-knowing, established in yoga, has become sated after knowing all of science?
Some have tried to take it so—this is mistaken. If that were the case, then here in India—where we produced many who were established in yoga—we would have discovered the essence of all the sciences. We did not. Then one yogi of ours would have completed the work of all the Einsteins, all the Newtons, all the Plancks—then there would have been no problem. Then we would have discovered the secret of the atom; we would have discovered the secret of the vast energies. Therefore whoever takes it so, takes it wrongly. That is not its meaning. Its meaning is deeper. That interpretation is very superficial; it is not deep.
“Whose soul is sated with all knowledge and science.”
Satiation by science means: curiosity has departed from his life. Curiosity—curiousness—has departed. In fact, curiosity is a sign of a very childish mind.
Think about it. The younger the age, the greater the curiosity—What is this like? What is that like? Why did this happen? Why didn’t that happen? The smaller the mind, the less the intelligence, the greater the curiosity.
Hence another amusing fact: just as children are full of curiosity, so too those civilizations that are childish give birth to science. Surprising as it may sound, the more childish a civilization is, the more scientific it becomes.
Europe or America are, in a certain sense, very childish, very much in childhood—hence scientific. Curiosity is heavy. What is on the moon? We must know! What is on Mars? We must know! Knowing, and knowing more—the curiosity has no end, because the world has no end.
Therefore if someone thinks, “When I know everything, then I’ll be satisfied,” he is mad. He will only go mad.
“Sated in knowledge and science”—what does that mean? It means: whose curiosity is gone; who has become so mature that he no longer asks, “Why is this so? Why is that so?” A mature person says, “It is so—this is so.” He says, “It is so,” because if leaves were yellow you’d ask, “Why are they yellow?” If trees had no leaves you would ask, “Why are there no leaves?”
A newly initiated sannyasin—she had come from America—asked me four or six days ago, “Why have I come to you?” I said, “If you hadn’t come to me, you could have asked, ‘Why have I not come to you?’ What does it mean! If you had reached someone else, you would have asked, ‘Why have I come to you?’ This question could be asked anywhere—anywhere—therefore it is pointless.”
Understand: a question that can be asked anywhere is a meaningless question. A question that is meaningful at a specific place—not everywhere—that alone has meaning. A question that can be applied everywhere loses all meaning. It has no meaning left.
A mature person knows: the world is such. Therefore mature civilizations did not give birth to science; mature civilizations gave birth to religion. Whenever a civilization is in its primary stage, it gives birth to science; when it reaches its peak, it gives birth to religion. Religion is the sign of the mature mind that says, “Things are such.”
Curiosity is pointless; it is childish. Let children be curious—that is fine. Curiosity is childhood.
So when Krishna says, “Sated with knowledge and science,” he means: one in whom no questions remain now! It does not mean one who has received all the answers. No one is ever going to get all the answers. And if some day all answers did come, nothing could be more dangerous. The day all answers arrive, there will be no recourse left but to die. And the day all answers arrive, it would mean the Divine is limited, not infinite. Concerning the truth that is infinite, answers can never be complete.
And all answers are tentative; all answers are provisional. Tomorrow new questions will arise and the answers will fall apart. When Newton gives an answer, it seems absolutely right. Twenty or twenty-five years do not pass before someone else raises new questions, and Newton’s answers fall apart. Then Einstein answers, and the old answers fall apart. Now every two years answers fall apart and new questions arise; all the old answers collapse at once.
A mature person knows that all answers are manufactured by man, and existence is answerless. Existence is answerless; that is why existence is a mystery.
Mystery means: answerless. From where no answer will ever come. There is no ultimate answer, no final answer. No one can say, “This is the answer.” There is no such thing. There are answers, but no Answer—answers that never finally say, “This is it; now no question can arise.” Curiosity will keep arising; every new answer gives birth to new questions.
When a person understands this mystery—that no question has a final answer—then he drops questioning. The state in which questioning falls away is called: sated with knowledge-and-science. That person has become mature. He has no curiosity left. Now he passes along the road without asking, because he knows that by asking nothing can be gained; all answers merely prove to be generators of new questions. He no longer asks, “Who am I?” He no longer asks, “Who are you?” He simply does not ask.
What happens then? When no one asks anything, what event occurs? When there is no question in the mind—a profound mystery—when all questions fall away, the mind becomes so silent, so still, that by another route it becomes one with the mystery of life. No answer is obtained, but life is obtained. No answer is obtained, but existence is obtained. That is the answer. One becomes absorbed in the mystery.
There is one way—knowing by asking; and another way—knowing by not asking. Knowing by not asking is the way of religion. Knowing by asking is the way of science.
But Krishna says: one who is sated with both knowledge and science—matured, ripened—now he does not ask. He says: all asking is children’s asking; and all answers are answers given by slightly older children. There is no difference. Children of a little younger age ask questions; children of a little older age give the answers.
Have you ever noticed at home—if there are two children, one small, one a little older? They ask you questions; you answer. Step outside the house for a moment; the little one starts asking the older one, and the older one starts answering the little one—the very thing you were doing!
All this question-and-answer is a discussion among children. Maturity happens at the moment when there are no questions, no answers—when there is such supreme silence that not even the obstruction of asking remains—not even the obstruction of asking.
So Krishna says: “Sated with knowledge and science.”
No, not that he has come to know all knowledge and all science—but that he has known the very urge to know to be futile. He has known all curiosity to be futile. He has known all asking to be futile. The futility has become clear—that nothing has ever been gained by asking. This is the difference between philosophy and religion.
Philosophers go on asking. They are old children whose childhood has not left them. They go on asking: “Who created the world?” and then ask, “Who created the creator?” and then ask, “Who created the one who created the creator?” and they go on asking. It never occurs to them what madness they are in! Will this ever have an end? There will be no end.
Ignorance will remain where it is. All these answers are given from ignorance. Nothing will be solved by them. The question will stand up again. They ask, “Who made the world?” You say, “God made it.” An answer given out of ignorance. The truth is: the ignorant keep asking, and the ignorant keep answering!
The riddle of the world will not be solved by questions and answers. You say, “As a potter makes a pot, so God made the world.” You do not even refrain from making God a potter—turning him into a potter! How can a pot be made without a potter? So how can a world be made without a God? So a great potter made the world like a pot.
But some child will surely ask, “We’ve understood that he made the world—but who made him?” The impatient pick up a stick and say, “Enough! Over-questioning! Ask no further—or we will crack your skull!”
If you were going to say “over-questioning,” you should have said at the very first question, “Do not ask—futile.” What difference would it have made? The point stands where it was. The king stands where he was. Earlier the question was tied to the world: “Who made it?” Now the same question is tied to God: “Who made him?” It is attached to the ultimate, and only to the ultimate. Earlier the world was the last; now God is the last. We ask, “Who made him?” And if you say, “He is uncreated, self-born,” then what obstacle was there in taking the world itself as self-born?
Philosophers are people caught in children’s curiosity. That is why all philosophy is childish. However great the philosopher—be it Hegel or the great Mimamsakas, however grave their tomes, however grand the words they use, however intricate the webs they weave—if you go deep you will find the hidden child, curious: “Why is this? Why is that?” Then he supplies his own answers. The questions are his own, the answers are his own—it is his own game.
Krishna says: the one who is sated with all this childishness; the one who has become mature and says, “Asking is futile—who will answer!”—the one so mature that he says, “Things are as they are. Fire burns and water is cool. It is so. Such is the nature of things.”
Mahavira has a very precious saying: vatthu-svabhāvo dhamma—knowing the nature of things is dharma. To know “Such is the nature of things—this has this nature, that has that nature”—just to know this much is religion. But such knowing becomes possible only when that endless inquisitiveness—the running compulsion to “know more, and more”—quietens and is sated.
So Krishna says: one whose inquisitiveness, whose curiosity has waned; who has matured; who has accepted existence and stopped asking; who has known, “I am a wave in this vast ocean—what should I ask? Whom should I ask? Who will answer? I myself am the answer. Let me be silent, be still, go deep within. Let me seek experience, not answers.” In that experience, what bears fruit is that one attains the Divine—so the knowers have said.
Krishna says: the knowers have said so. “It is said.”
Why does Krishna say, “It is said”? This last point—and then this evening we will speak again. Krishna says so because he makes no personal claim: “This is not merely what I say; whoever has known has said just this.” I am no claimant. Krishna does not say, “I alone am saying this.” He says, “Those who know have also said this.” Knowledge says this. This is an effort to dismiss the person.
Remember: in the knower the person does not remain. Even when he speaks, he does not remain. Even when he says “I,” he does not remain. These are only makeshift ways of speaking.
Therefore Krishna says, “It is said.” I too say so. Others also say so. Whoever knows, says so. This is the statement of knowledge. Knowledge says this.
Beyond all dualities, beyond curiosity, beyond the futile race to know; the mind grown mature, equal, non-dual, stilled in equanimity, unmoving—attains the Divine.
We will sit five minutes more. We have heard enough—questions, answers. For five minutes, let us try to descend into experience. Though the mind can listen for two hours, it finds even five minutes of experience difficult.
So for five minutes we will enter experience. I would like you to join. The sannyasins will do kirtan here; they are getting lost in bliss—may you too partake in their bliss. Clap, sing with them. Don’t be shy—“What will the neighbor say?” He is saying plenty as it is. Don’t worry about him.
Those who wish to join the dance—come up here or to the front. Those who want to sit, clap, sing—sing and join in. For five minutes, be absorbed. Leave all questions, all curiosity, Gita and Veda—and descend to the place from which the Gita is born and the Vedas arise. Dive a little within!
Two meanings are worth taking into account. First: we haven’t even conquered ourselves, yet we go on making plans to conquer everything. We haven’t even conquered ourselves! And who could be more deranged than the person who, without conquering himself, plans to conquer all? If one has to set out on the journey of victory, one should first win oneself. What does it mean that we have not conquered ourselves?
If I say to you, “Do not get angry today,” do you have enough power over yourself not to be angry today? That’s already a big thing. If I say only this much, “Close your eyes for five minutes and do not allow the word ‘Ram’ to enter within,” then you will find out how much ownership you actually have over yourself! Close your eyes, and I say: for five minutes let the word Ram not enter your mind. You don’t have even that much strength to stop the word Ram from coming in. In these five minutes it will come more than it ever did in your life! Suddenly the japa of Ram will begin! The japa may do you some good—but your own defeat will stand proven. We do not have even a grain of control over ourselves.
So “one who has conquered his own soul.” Here, one meaning of “soul” is one’s own authority; ownership over one’s own being.
Examine and you will discover your slavery—how weak we are! How weak we are! Our weakness is written everywhere: on every doorway, on every sense, on every disposition, on every desire, on every thought. Deceiving oneself won’t help.
Thus the first reminder is: conquer yourself. One meaning of atman is “oneself.” And “he who has conquered the atman”—there is a second, deeper meaning: he who has known himself. Because knowing becomes conquering. Knowledge is victory. Self-knowledge is self-victory.
So one meaning is that our personality becomes so free that I can say, “My strength, my control, is over me. You can rely on me. I can rely on myself.”
But can you? If you think about it, you will find: can you really rely on yourself? You tell someone, “I will love you tomorrow too.” Have you ever thought—this is a slave making a promise. Tomorrow? Will you be able to love tomorrow? Think a little more. And if tomorrow love evaporates like camphor into the sky, what way will you have to bring it back?
Look at it this way: you have fallen in love with someone today; if I say to you, “For one hour, do not love this person,” if you are capable of saying, “All right, for this one hour in my life there will be no hour of loving this person,” then one could trust that tomorrow too, when love flies away, you will still be able to fulfill the promise to love. Otherwise, you cannot be trusted. Right now you’ll say, “How can it be that I don’t love?” Tomorrow you will say, “How can it be that I do love?” Helpless, bound.
So the first, primary, outer meaning is: conquer yourself in the sense that I can rely on myself. The second meaning is: know yourself.
Mahavira has said: he who has known himself has also conquered. Hence with Mahavira is joined the word Jina—Jina means “the conqueror.” Because having known, he has conquered. How can we conquer what we don’t even know? To conquer something without knowing it is impossible. Knowledge is victory. Whatever we know, we become its master.
In the second sense, we are self-ignorant. We have no idea who I am! We know name and address, which have nothing to do with our being. We have no idea who I am! No news at all. To call someone “self-possessed” who does not even know who he is would be merely playing with words.
There was a fakir, Gurdjieff. He used to say: not everyone has a soul. When he first said it, there was a great stir. People said, “No scripture says this. All scriptures say there is a soul in everyone. You say not everyone has a soul!” Gurdjieff would say: for one who does not even know it, being or not being are the same. Suppose a man says, “There is a treasure in my house.” Ask him, “Where is it?” He says, “I don’t know.” Then what difference is there between being and not being? None at all—virtually no difference.
So Gurdjieff used to say, “I do not accept that everyone has a soul,” and I say he was right. The soul is within only for one who knows it.
I’ve heard of a man who, in great panic, stood by the roadside feeling all his pockets. A couple of people gathered, seeing his agitation. He would put his hand in this pocket, then that one, leaving only the upper pocket of his coat untouched. Finally someone asked, “Sir, you’ve checked your pockets several times and look quite distressed; there are drops of sweat—what’s the matter?” The man said, “My wallet is lost. I’ve checked every pocket except one.” They asked, “Why not check that one as well?” He said, “I’m afraid—if it isn’t there either? That’s why I’m checking everywhere else!”
We are afraid to go within for the same reason—what if the soul isn’t there? So we sit outside reading books and feel very relieved: “There is a soul within, there is God within, there are fountains of nectar, streams of bliss are flowing.” Reading a book outside, we become very assured. But we never put our hand into the pocket within—what if it isn’t there? Then one more trust would be shattered, one more hope fragmented. One reassurance by which all sorrows could be borne, by whose support we could go on feeling all the other pockets—“If I don’t find it here, never mind, I’ll surely find it there!”—what if that too breaks? Out of that fear we don’t even peek within.
Ātmajayī means: the person who can look within with wide-open eyes. He knows it is there; he has seen it is there; he has found it is there. Now he is fearless. Now even if you thrust a dagger into his chest, he is fearless, because he knows that dagger cannot enter the one he has come to know. Now if death stands at his door, he will embrace it, because he knows that what he has known within cannot in any way be touched by death. Now if you hurl abuses and insult him, he will laugh, because he knows: your abuses cannot reach him, your insults cannot reach what he is. Now he is victorious—now he is Jina.
So, in the outer sense: we cannot rely on ourselves even for anything of our own; our tendencies drag us wherever they will; we are heteronomous, subjugated. And in this deeper sense: we have no idea who we are. Therefore Krishna says: the one who is ātmajayī, who has conquered the self—God is ever established in him.
ज्ञानविज्ञानतृप्तात्मा कूटस्थो विजितेन्द्रियः।
युक्त इच्युच्यते योगी समलोष्टाश्मकाञ्चनः।। 8।।
And whose inner being is sated with knowledge and science, whose state is changeless and free of perturbation, whose senses are well conquered, and to whom earth, stone, and gold are alike—that yogi is called “yukta,” united, one who has attained the Divine.
In this shloka a few new directions are added to the previous aphorism: “One who is sated with knowledge and science.”
“Knowledge” means knowing oneself. “Science” means knowing the other. Science is the method of knowing the other; knowledge is the method of knowing oneself.
Krishna says, “Sated with knowledge and science.” What will that mean? Does it mean that one who is self-knowing, established in yoga, has become sated after knowing all of science?
Some have tried to take it so—this is mistaken. If that were the case, then here in India—where we produced many who were established in yoga—we would have discovered the essence of all the sciences. We did not. Then one yogi of ours would have completed the work of all the Einsteins, all the Newtons, all the Plancks—then there would have been no problem. Then we would have discovered the secret of the atom; we would have discovered the secret of the vast energies. Therefore whoever takes it so, takes it wrongly. That is not its meaning. Its meaning is deeper. That interpretation is very superficial; it is not deep.
“Whose soul is sated with all knowledge and science.”
Satiation by science means: curiosity has departed from his life. Curiosity—curiousness—has departed. In fact, curiosity is a sign of a very childish mind.
Think about it. The younger the age, the greater the curiosity—What is this like? What is that like? Why did this happen? Why didn’t that happen? The smaller the mind, the less the intelligence, the greater the curiosity.
Hence another amusing fact: just as children are full of curiosity, so too those civilizations that are childish give birth to science. Surprising as it may sound, the more childish a civilization is, the more scientific it becomes.
Europe or America are, in a certain sense, very childish, very much in childhood—hence scientific. Curiosity is heavy. What is on the moon? We must know! What is on Mars? We must know! Knowing, and knowing more—the curiosity has no end, because the world has no end.
Therefore if someone thinks, “When I know everything, then I’ll be satisfied,” he is mad. He will only go mad.
“Sated in knowledge and science”—what does that mean? It means: whose curiosity is gone; who has become so mature that he no longer asks, “Why is this so? Why is that so?” A mature person says, “It is so.”
Understand the difference. Children ask, “Why is it so?” Why are leaves green? Why is the rose red? Why are there stars in the sky? The mature person says, “It is so—this is so.” He says, “It is so,” because if leaves were yellow you’d ask, “Why are they yellow?” If trees had no leaves you would ask, “Why are there no leaves?”
So, in the outer sense: we cannot rely on ourselves even for anything of our own; our tendencies drag us wherever they will; we are heteronomous, subjugated. And in this deeper sense: we have no idea who we are. Therefore Krishna says: the one who is ātmajayī, who has conquered the self—God is ever established in him.
ज्ञानविज्ञानतृप्तात्मा कूटस्थो विजितेन्द्रियः।
युक्त इच्युच्यते योगी समलोष्टाश्मकाञ्चनः।। 8।।
And whose inner being is sated with knowledge and science, whose state is changeless and free of perturbation, whose senses are well conquered, and to whom earth, stone, and gold are alike—that yogi is called “yukta,” united, one who has attained the Divine.
In this shloka a few new directions are added to the previous aphorism: “One who is sated with knowledge and science.”
“Knowledge” means knowing oneself. “Science” means knowing the other. Science is the method of knowing the other; knowledge is the method of knowing oneself.
Krishna says, “Sated with knowledge and science.” What will that mean? Does it mean that one who is self-knowing, established in yoga, has become sated after knowing all of science?
Some have tried to take it so—this is mistaken. If that were the case, then here in India—where we produced many who were established in yoga—we would have discovered the essence of all the sciences. We did not. Then one yogi of ours would have completed the work of all the Einsteins, all the Newtons, all the Plancks—then there would have been no problem. Then we would have discovered the secret of the atom; we would have discovered the secret of the vast energies. Therefore whoever takes it so, takes it wrongly. That is not its meaning. Its meaning is deeper. That interpretation is very superficial; it is not deep.
“Whose soul is sated with all knowledge and science.”
Satiation by science means: curiosity has departed from his life. Curiosity—curiousness—has departed. In fact, curiosity is a sign of a very childish mind.
Think about it. The younger the age, the greater the curiosity—What is this like? What is that like? Why did this happen? Why didn’t that happen? The smaller the mind, the less the intelligence, the greater the curiosity.
Hence another amusing fact: just as children are full of curiosity, so too those civilizations that are childish give birth to science. Surprising as it may sound, the more childish a civilization is, the more scientific it becomes.
Europe or America are, in a certain sense, very childish, very much in childhood—hence scientific. Curiosity is heavy. What is on the moon? We must know! What is on Mars? We must know! Knowing, and knowing more—the curiosity has no end, because the world has no end.
Therefore if someone thinks, “When I know everything, then I’ll be satisfied,” he is mad. He will only go mad.
“Sated in knowledge and science”—what does that mean? It means: whose curiosity is gone; who has become so mature that he no longer asks, “Why is this so? Why is that so?” A mature person says, “It is so—this is so.” He says, “It is so,” because if leaves were yellow you’d ask, “Why are they yellow?” If trees had no leaves you would ask, “Why are there no leaves?”
A newly initiated sannyasin—she had come from America—asked me four or six days ago, “Why have I come to you?” I said, “If you hadn’t come to me, you could have asked, ‘Why have I not come to you?’ What does it mean! If you had reached someone else, you would have asked, ‘Why have I come to you?’ This question could be asked anywhere—anywhere—therefore it is pointless.”
Understand: a question that can be asked anywhere is a meaningless question. A question that is meaningful at a specific place—not everywhere—that alone has meaning. A question that can be applied everywhere loses all meaning. It has no meaning left.
A mature person knows: the world is such. Therefore mature civilizations did not give birth to science; mature civilizations gave birth to religion. Whenever a civilization is in its primary stage, it gives birth to science; when it reaches its peak, it gives birth to religion. Religion is the sign of the mature mind that says, “Things are such.”
Curiosity is pointless; it is childish. Let children be curious—that is fine. Curiosity is childhood.
So when Krishna says, “Sated with knowledge and science,” he means: one in whom no questions remain now! It does not mean one who has received all the answers. No one is ever going to get all the answers. And if some day all answers did come, nothing could be more dangerous. The day all answers arrive, there will be no recourse left but to die. And the day all answers arrive, it would mean the Divine is limited, not infinite. Concerning the truth that is infinite, answers can never be complete.
And all answers are tentative; all answers are provisional. Tomorrow new questions will arise and the answers will fall apart. When Newton gives an answer, it seems absolutely right. Twenty or twenty-five years do not pass before someone else raises new questions, and Newton’s answers fall apart. Then Einstein answers, and the old answers fall apart. Now every two years answers fall apart and new questions arise; all the old answers collapse at once.
A mature person knows that all answers are manufactured by man, and existence is answerless. Existence is answerless; that is why existence is a mystery.
Mystery means: answerless. From where no answer will ever come. There is no ultimate answer, no final answer. No one can say, “This is the answer.” There is no such thing. There are answers, but no Answer—answers that never finally say, “This is it; now no question can arise.” Curiosity will keep arising; every new answer gives birth to new questions.
When a person understands this mystery—that no question has a final answer—then he drops questioning. The state in which questioning falls away is called: sated with knowledge-and-science. That person has become mature. He has no curiosity left. Now he passes along the road without asking, because he knows that by asking nothing can be gained; all answers merely prove to be generators of new questions. He no longer asks, “Who am I?” He no longer asks, “Who are you?” He simply does not ask.
What happens then? When no one asks anything, what event occurs? When there is no question in the mind—a profound mystery—when all questions fall away, the mind becomes so silent, so still, that by another route it becomes one with the mystery of life. No answer is obtained, but life is obtained. No answer is obtained, but existence is obtained. That is the answer. One becomes absorbed in the mystery.
There is one way—knowing by asking; and another way—knowing by not asking. Knowing by not asking is the way of religion. Knowing by asking is the way of science.
But Krishna says: one who is sated with both knowledge and science—matured, ripened—now he does not ask. He says: all asking is children’s asking; and all answers are answers given by slightly older children. There is no difference. Children of a little younger age ask questions; children of a little older age give the answers.
Have you ever noticed at home—if there are two children, one small, one a little older? They ask you questions; you answer. Step outside the house for a moment; the little one starts asking the older one, and the older one starts answering the little one—the very thing you were doing!
All this question-and-answer is a discussion among children. Maturity happens at the moment when there are no questions, no answers—when there is such supreme silence that not even the obstruction of asking remains—not even the obstruction of asking.
So Krishna says: “Sated with knowledge and science.”
No, not that he has come to know all knowledge and all science—but that he has known the very urge to know to be futile. He has known all curiosity to be futile. He has known all asking to be futile. The futility has become clear—that nothing has ever been gained by asking. This is the difference between philosophy and religion.
Philosophers go on asking. They are old children whose childhood has not left them. They go on asking: “Who created the world?” and then ask, “Who created the creator?” and then ask, “Who created the one who created the creator?” and they go on asking. It never occurs to them what madness they are in! Will this ever have an end? There will be no end.
Ignorance will remain where it is. All these answers are given from ignorance. Nothing will be solved by them. The question will stand up again. They ask, “Who made the world?” You say, “God made it.” An answer given out of ignorance. The truth is: the ignorant keep asking, and the ignorant keep answering!
The riddle of the world will not be solved by questions and answers. You say, “As a potter makes a pot, so God made the world.” You do not even refrain from making God a potter—turning him into a potter! How can a pot be made without a potter? So how can a world be made without a God? So a great potter made the world like a pot.
But some child will surely ask, “We’ve understood that he made the world—but who made him?” The impatient pick up a stick and say, “Enough! Over-questioning! Ask no further—or we will crack your skull!”
If you were going to say “over-questioning,” you should have said at the very first question, “Do not ask—futile.” What difference would it have made? The point stands where it was. The king stands where he was. Earlier the question was tied to the world: “Who made it?” Now the same question is tied to God: “Who made him?” It is attached to the ultimate, and only to the ultimate. Earlier the world was the last; now God is the last. We ask, “Who made him?” And if you say, “He is uncreated, self-born,” then what obstacle was there in taking the world itself as self-born?
Philosophers are people caught in children’s curiosity. That is why all philosophy is childish. However great the philosopher—be it Hegel or the great Mimamsakas, however grave their tomes, however grand the words they use, however intricate the webs they weave—if you go deep you will find the hidden child, curious: “Why is this? Why is that?” Then he supplies his own answers. The questions are his own, the answers are his own—it is his own game.
Krishna says: the one who is sated with all this childishness; the one who has become mature and says, “Asking is futile—who will answer!”—the one so mature that he says, “Things are as they are. Fire burns and water is cool. It is so. Such is the nature of things.”
Mahavira has a very precious saying: vatthu-svabhāvo dhamma—knowing the nature of things is dharma. To know “Such is the nature of things—this has this nature, that has that nature”—just to know this much is religion. But such knowing becomes possible only when that endless inquisitiveness—the running compulsion to “know more, and more”—quietens and is sated.
So Krishna says: one whose inquisitiveness, whose curiosity has waned; who has matured; who has accepted existence and stopped asking; who has known, “I am a wave in this vast ocean—what should I ask? Whom should I ask? Who will answer? I myself am the answer. Let me be silent, be still, go deep within. Let me seek experience, not answers.” In that experience, what bears fruit is that one attains the Divine—so the knowers have said.
Krishna says: the knowers have said so. “It is said.”
Why does Krishna say, “It is said”? This last point—and then this evening we will speak again. Krishna says so because he makes no personal claim: “This is not merely what I say; whoever has known has said just this.” I am no claimant. Krishna does not say, “I alone am saying this.” He says, “Those who know have also said this.” Knowledge says this. This is an effort to dismiss the person.
Remember: in the knower the person does not remain. Even when he speaks, he does not remain. Even when he says “I,” he does not remain. These are only makeshift ways of speaking.
Therefore Krishna says, “It is said.” I too say so. Others also say so. Whoever knows, says so. This is the statement of knowledge. Knowledge says this.
Beyond all dualities, beyond curiosity, beyond the futile race to know; the mind grown mature, equal, non-dual, stilled in equanimity, unmoving—attains the Divine.
We will sit five minutes more. We have heard enough—questions, answers. For five minutes, let us try to descend into experience. Though the mind can listen for two hours, it finds even five minutes of experience difficult.
So for five minutes we will enter experience. I would like you to join. The sannyasins will do kirtan here; they are getting lost in bliss—may you too partake in their bliss. Clap, sing with them. Don’t be shy—“What will the neighbor say?” He is saying plenty as it is. Don’t worry about him.
Those who wish to join the dance—come up here or to the front. Those who want to sit, clap, sing—sing and join in. For five minutes, be absorbed. Leave all questions, all curiosity, Gita and Veda—and descend to the place from which the Gita is born and the Vedas arise. Dive a little within!
Osho's Commentary
First: the one who is steady amidst dualities, equal in opposite conditions. Whether success or failure, honor or insult, it is as if no difference occurs within, as if no touch happens inside. Events unfold outside and the person within remains untouched. First understand clearly what this means, what its intent is. What is the process to reach it? What is the path?
First understand well: how do we become disturbed? When sorrow comes, and also when happiness comes—why is an opportunity created for the inner flame of consciousness to flicker? What is the cause? Is sorrow the cause? If sorrow alone were the cause, then what Krishna says could never be possible—for sorrow also comes to Krishna.
When the inner consciousness loses its evenness in happiness, becomes excited—does happiness cause it? If happiness alone were the cause, then no one on this earth could attain the state Krishna speaks of—not even Krishna himself.
We all think: we were disturbed because of sorrow; we were aroused because of happiness. No—happiness and sorrow are not the causes. As long as you take happiness and sorrow to be the cause, you will go on being excited. You have misunderstood the cause; your diagnosis is erroneous.
No one is excited by happiness. One becomes excited by taking oneself to be one with happiness. No one is agitated by sorrow. One becomes agitated by losing oneself in sorrow.
We are not able to stand outside happiness and sorrow; we slip within. An identity forms—tadātma-bhāva. When sorrow befalls you, it does not feel, “Sorrow has come upon me”; it feels, “I have become sorrow.” When happiness surrounds you, it does not feel as if happiness stands encircling you; it feels, “I myself have become happiness—a single wave of joy.”
This identification—this habit of becoming bound with happiness and sorrow—is the cause of excitation. And this habit can be broken.
Happiness and sorrow will keep coming. They do not cease. Thorns pierce the feet of a Buddha. Buddha also falls ill. Death comes to Buddha as well. But it comes in a manner different from ours. Death will not change its way; it will come in its own way. But Buddha changes himself so totally that the manner of death’s coming changes completely.
Buddha is near death. The lamp of life is about to go out. The body is to be dropped. A monk asks Buddha, “There is so much pain. My mind is greatly saddened. In a few moments you will no longer be!” Buddha says, “That which was not, will cease to be. That which was, will remain.” Death is coming. Buddha says, “That which was not, will cease to be. Therefore do not grieve in vain. For death can erase only that which never was; which we merely thought to be; which was a dream; which was only our notion, without any existentiality in the world of things—that will be gone. That which was not will be gone—it was never there. And that which was—there is no way for it to cease. That which is, remains.”
Death is coming, but Buddha sees death differently. “I will die”—Buddha does not see this. Buddha sees, “That which can die, that which is already always dying, will die.” He can stand away from himself, remain a witness. The river of death will flow by, and Buddha will stand on the bank—untouched, outside.
Pain also comes; sorrow also comes. Everything continues to come. Night comes too, and morning will be. Even if you attain knowing on this earth, night will not turn into light. If you attain knowing, sorrow will not become happiness. If you attain knowing, when a thorn pricks it will not feel like a flower; it will feel like a thorn. Then where is the difference?
When does the inner consciousness wobble? When a thorn pricks the foot? No—when the inner consciousness believes, “A thorn has pierced me.” If the inner consciousness remains beyond the thorn, it remains unagitated. Then consciousness stays untouched—un-touched—outside.
This art of remaining outside is Yoga. It is about this art of remaining outside that Krishna speaks. And in such a steadied consciousness—such a flame as is not altered by gusts of wind—in such a consciousness the Supreme Presence abides. The doors of its temple open. It is already enthroned; only we are not aware of it.
Consciousness can perceive only one of two things. If it remains joined in the world of identification, the world is known. If it withdraws from the world of identification, becomes a witness, then Paramatma begins to be known.
Understand it thus: we stand in the middle. On this side is the world; on that side is Paramatma. So long as our gaze clings to the world, there is no chance to look back. When our gaze loosens a little from the world, becomes separate, distinct—then spontaneously—spontaneously—our eyes begin to turn toward Paramatma.
The gaze must go somewhere. To go somewhere is its very nature. It can go in two directions: toward matter, or toward Paramatma. And there is one easy means for it to go toward Paramatma: do not let it be identified with matter. That is all; it begins to flow toward the divine.
Paramatma is ever-present. But our gaze is not present upon That. We keep looking the other way. What we are, we do not identify with; and what we are not, with that we take ourselves to be one! Why does such a mistake happen?
The mistake is so vast that calling it a mistake may not be apt. For “mistake” should be used for that which someone does only sometimes. What all do continuously should not be called merely a mistake.
“Mistake” means: out of a hundred, perhaps one does it. Then we are justified in calling it a mistake. But here, a hundred out of a hundred do it. Perhaps out of millions, a single person does not. So this is not merely a mistake—it is not a mathematical error like adding two and two and making five. That someone may do on occasion. Merely calling it a mistake will not do; it is a delusion—a bhrānti.
There is a slight difference between mistake and delusion. To keep this difference in view is the second point; then this sutra will be understood.
A mistake is that for which the individual is responsible—something done through one’s own personal fault. Delusion is that for which the human species as such is responsible. The very mode of human being is responsible.
You are walking along a path and you mistake a rope for a snake—that is a mistake. Not everyone passing by will see a snake. A mind afraid of snakes, filled with experiences of snakes, will infer a snake even from a rope. That is an inference: “Perhaps it is a snake.” But not everyone will see a snake. Because it is a mistake, there is no great difficulty: switch on a torch, light a lamp—and the mistake vanishes. It is personal; it does not arise from the human mind as such, but from an individual mind. It is individual, not collective.
But the “mistake” I am speaking of, the one Krishna speaks of in this sutra, is collective. It is not that a rope appears as a snake only to some—whoever passes sees a snake. Even if Buddha or Mahavira or Krishna stands at the side and keeps shouting, “It is not a snake, it is a rope!” still a snake is seen. So to call this a mistake is not easy.
Light lamps, bring illumination, keep shouting that it is a rope, not a snake—still whoever passes by, even after hearing, sees a snake, not a rope. This is a delusion of the collective mind; therefore it is a bhrānti.
It is like putting a stick into water and it appears bent. It does not become bent; it appears so. Pull the stick out—it looks straight. Put it back in—it looks bent again. Put your hand into the water and feel it—it feels straight. Yet the eye still sees it as bent! That is not a mistake; it is a delusion. A thousand times you may know perfectly well that the stick does not bend in water, yet whenever you see it in water it will appear bent.
Delusion is that which arises from the group-mind.
This I call a delusion: our identification. We make ourselves utterly one with sorrow and happiness. It is a delusion arising from the collective mind. Like the stick in water appearing bent. It is not like the rope-snake mistake. Therefore, a thousand times after understanding, again and again the same thing recurs.
This delusion comes from the unconscious. You are less responsible at present. Far more responsible are the patterns by which you have lived through infinite births. It has settled deep. Why has it settled? The formula of its settlement must also be understood.
When a delusion is seated so deep, it has a very deep formula. That is why it is so difficult to break. The Gita keeps calling us; we keep reading. No one breaks it. It seems very difficult. Because you read the Gita with the intellect, which is very superficial, and the delusion rises from very deep within you. The two do not meet.
We read: one should remain even-minded in happiness and sorrow. Then a small thorn pricks the foot—and all sutras are lost. The Gita is forgotten; the foot is grabbed. And we say, “A thorn has pierced me!” What the intellect had concluded is of no use. The delusion lies deeper than the intellect. The delusion is in the unconscious. And why?
Not because of sorrow; the delusion is due to happiness. That the delusion is not due to sorrow—anyone will agree readily. It is very pleasing to be told that when a thorn pierces the foot it does not pierce me. Anyone will agree. When illness comes, it does not come to me. When death comes, it does not come to me. Anyone will agree.
No—the difficulty is not with sorrow; the difficulty is with happiness. “I am not happiness”—this we ourselves are unwilling to accept. Therefore sorrow is not the real issue; happiness is. When you say, “I am alive,” then you will also have to say, “I will die.”
Remember: the delusion does not arise with death; it arises with life—“I am alive!” And if the delusion is to be broken, it must be broken at life, not at death. But people try to break it at death. They sit and repeat, “Atman is immortal. I will never die.”
But they do not notice that when you take yourself to be alive, then one day you will have to understand, “I die.” That is the second half of the same statement. But no one sits and remembers, “Where am I alive?” That would be very unsettling. If it is to be broken, it must be broken here.
When happiness comes, the mind is instantly ready to accept, “I am happiness.” When someone places a garland of flowers around your neck, it feels as if it is on your neck alone—there must be some virtue in you. But if someone were to hang a garland of shoes around your neck, you think, “That man was evil, malicious; it was not for my neck.”
When someone honors you, the readiness to identify is complete. But when someone insults you, you yourself want to break the identification. No one wants to identify with sorrow. It happens—because everyone wants to identify with happiness.
Why do we want to identify with happiness? And unless we break with happiness, we will never break with sorrow. Until we break with honor, we will never break with insult. Until we break with praise, we will not break with blame. Until we break with life, we will not break with death.
Therefore the seeker must begin with happiness. People always begin with sorrow—then it never breaks. Begin with happiness. In happiness, make the effort to remain outside! When happiness comes, try to stand far away from yourself!
And the amazing thing is, no one begins with happiness—although, if someone did, it would be very simple. This is the second point I want to tell you. No one begins with happiness. If someone did, it would be very easy. People begin with sorrow. You cannot begin there. It is impossible to begin with sorrow.
Our direct relationship is with happiness; sorrow follows behind happiness. Our relationship with sorrow is indirect, not direct; it is mediated, not immediate. Only with that which we are directly related can we break—and break easily.
Yet no one begins with happiness, where it would be simple to break. All begin with sorrow, where it can never break. Therefore it often happens that the unhappy set out in search of religion. The happy rarely seek religion.
A friend once brought a friend to me. Many times he had said he wanted to bring him, but he was unwilling. He used to say, “I am happy in every way. Why should I go now?” I said, “Then wait a bit. For being happy in every way cannot last. Wait a little. Be patient. Soon sorrow will come. And the one who says, ‘I am happy in every way—why should I go now?’—he will be ready to come when sorrow arrives, though coming then will be useless. Now something could happen. For happiness is the seed; sorrow is the fruit. To destroy the seed of happiness is very easy; to uproot the vast tree of sorrow will be very difficult.”
“And just as from sowing one seed, a tree produces millions of seeds, in the same way, from the desire for one happiness, the great tree of sorrow bears fruit. And upon that tree of sorrow again millions of desires for happiness start sprouting.”
I said, “But wait. The rule is that people seek religion in sorrow—precisely when religion cannot be sought. And in happiness they say, ‘I am happy—what need is there to seek?’”
Why is this so? Because people seek even religion for happiness. Religion is also pursued for happiness! Hence in sorrow they say, “Very well, the mind is unhappy—let us seek religion.”
But religion has nothing to do with happiness. Religion is the entire science of breaking from happiness. Although one who breaks from happiness is joined with bliss—ānanda. That is entirely different.
Never mistake this: what you call happiness has nothing whatsoever to do with bliss. At most this much relation exists—and it does—that because of happiness, bliss never arrives. That is all. Because of happiness, the blockage remains, and you cannot reach the door of bliss.
As it happened, his wife died. Sorrow came. Then his friend brought him to me. He said, “My wife has died. I am very unhappy. My mind is disturbed. Show me some way.” I told him, “Now be properly unhappy. Be unhappy thoroughly. Cry, beat your chest, bang your head.” He was startled. He said, “I did not come expecting this from you. I wanted some consolation!” I said, “Then you too have come to me in search of happiness—that I somehow lighten your sorrow and give you a little pleasure. Before you search for a new wife, let me tidy you up a bit. With this face, it will be hard to find a new wife.”
He said, “What are you saying? My wife has died!” I said, “Ask your own mind honestly—have you not already begun looking for a new wife?” He said, “How did you know?” I said, “I did not ‘know’ anything about you in particular. I know the human mind. Very soon you will find a new wife. Then you will say, ‘I am happy now; what need is there for religion?’”
Religion cannot be your instrument. Religion is not some emergency measure that when you are troubled you quickly open the emergency door of religion and slip in. Religion is not a device to free you from sorrow. Properly understood, religion is a device to free you from happiness. For that the mind is never ready; therefore religion never comes into our life.
And remember: the one who drops happiness is instantly freed from sorrow. And the one who seeks to drop sorrow and gain happiness will never be free of sorrow, for he cannot be free of happiness.
Sorrow is the other face of happiness—inevitable. And while we are prepared to drop sorrow, we are not prepared to drop happiness.
I want to tell you: understand the pain hidden in happiness. See happiness in its full contour. See the sorrow concealed behind every happiness. Awaken to the deception of every happiness. Every happiness is only a temptation to throw you into a new sorrow. Until there is such alertness toward happiness, you will not be able to stand on the bank.
Lao Tzu used to say: whenever someone came to honor me, I said, “Forgive me, for I do not want insult.” The man said, “But we have come to honor you!” Lao Tzu said, “You have come to honor me—and if I accept the honor, somewhere nearby insult will be on its way. It will begin its journey. For I have never heard that these two live apart. They are a pair. They walk together. They have never divorced. They always stand side by side. It is an inseparable pair. Do me a kindness—do not send an invitation to my insult. Take your honor back.”
The emperor of that land wished to offer Lao Tzu wealth and riches. People said, “Such a great, wondrous fakir in your land, and he begs—this does not befit you.” The emperor himself came to Lao Tzu’s hut with many chariots laden with gold, grains, garments, ornaments—treasures by the millions. Lao Tzu said, “For now I am my own master; you will make me a beggar needlessly. Take all this paraphernalia back. And if you object to my sovereignty over myself, I will leave your kingdom. But do not trouble me.” The king said, “What are you saying? I have come to give you happiness!” Lao Tzu said, “Experience of innumerable births tells me that whoever came to give happiness left only sorrow. No more deception.”
But one must awaken in happiness; one must awaken in honor; one must awaken where the ego is gratified, where flowers are arranged around the ego. There one must be alert. And it is easy there, for that is the beginning—there the journey starts. Sorrow is the end; happiness the beginning. And the one who is alert at the beginning can get out. To be alert in the middle becomes very difficult.
But we want to sleep at the beginning. People speak of “sleeping the sleep of happiness.” Happiness is a sleep. Rarely does anyone awaken in happiness.
Keep the second sutra in mind: surely—and soon—happiness will come; then be alert, for sorrow is standing behind, waiting. Surely—and soon—honor will come; then be startled into awareness—remember Lao Tzu: “Now this man is arranging for my insult.” If ever you get a chance to sit upon a throne, run away. Then sorrow will never meet you.
And once this sutra becomes clear—that the capacity to avoid happiness is the qualification to avoid sorrow; and the day you gather the capacity to be free of happiness, you obtain the qualification to be free of sorrow—on that very day the door of bliss opens. The moment one stands apart from happiness, the wavering flame of the mind becomes steady. And the one who did not waver in happiness will never waver in sorrow.
Remember: if you waver in happiness, you will have to waver in sorrow. The vibrations of sorrow are the inevitable complement of the vibrations born in happiness. As with a clock’s pendulum: if you push it to the left, it will go to the right—it must. There is no way to avoid it. If you are stirred by happiness, you will be stirred by sorrow.
But we want to be stirred by happiness and not stirred by sorrow. Reverse it. Do not want to be stirred by happiness—and then sorrow will not be able to touch you. Remain in the search that when happiness comes, you are full of awareness and see whether happiness is making you tremble or not.
It is not difficult. It is only a matter of remembering. Not difficult at all. We simply do not notice—this is all. We lack the remembrance that happiness itself is our sorrow. We take sorrow to be sorrow, and happiness to be happiness—that is the delusion. And that delusion is collective, not individual.
When your son comes home dancing because he has stood first in his class, then know he is preparing for sorrow. If only parents were wise, they would say, “There is no need to be so happy. For as happy as you become, just that much sorrow will be placed on the other pan of the scale, which will return soon enough.” In that child the group-mind is being born, and we collaborate. We too will call in the band, distribute flowers and sweets. We begin to encourage identification with happiness in him. We give his mind a direction that will lead him into sorrow.
We mold our children in our own image. Our parents molded us; their parents molded them. Diseases continue to shape further diseases. Illness gives birth to illness.
That child also has a past, experiences of previous births. There too he repeated the same mistake. In this birth we again condition his brain from childhood, again imprint samskaras, show the whole readiness to be happy in happiness. Then in sorrow he will be sorrowful.
At birth we celebrate with band and music. Conditioning begins. You will say, “A newborn child won’t even know—the band is playing for joy.”
But those who now work on the body’s memory say: these bands and drums also enter the child’s unconscious. Not only that—when the child is in the mother’s womb, the events that happen then also become part of the child’s unconscious memory; they too help shape the child.
These bands, these waves of jubilation, this collective feeling of becoming one with happiness—their vibrations also enter the child. Later those very vibrations will bring sorrow at the time of death.
If you do not want sorrow at the time of death, then remove the arrangements that produce identification with happiness at the time of birth. Break from happiness where it begins.
Yoga is the name of awakening in happiness. Awaken and see: “I am separate.” Then you will also awaken in sorrow and see that you are separate; no obstruction will arise, no difficulty will occur. Remain a witness.
It will take time. Not because there is some inner cause requiring time, but because our habits are strong and ancient. The habit of wavering is strong, very old. We do not even notice when we begin to tremble. When someone utters two words of praise, you do not notice that as soon as you hear—and perhaps even a moment before—you have already trembled. You saw the look on his face: he will say something in praise—and something inside quivered. Even if you know the praise is false, you will still tremble. Because you also know that you utter false praises of others to make them tremble! And someone else praises you to make you tremble!
Without making you vibrate, you cannot be used. Only by shaking you can you be used. Therefore so much flattery runs in the world. So much flattery—because first you must be made to wobble; only then can you be used. The moment you wobble, you become weak.
Remember: the moment your consciousness trembles, you become weak. Then anything can be done with you. The one who flatters you is weakening you; he is breaking you within.
Therefore Krishna uses a word: the one who remains unmoved in happiness and sorrow—he alone is free. He says: only he is free who remains equal in pleasure and pain. No one in the world can make him a slave.
As for us—anyone can enslave us, because anyone can make us tremble. And once we tremble, the ground disappears from beneath our feet. Anyone can do it. Someone says, “I have never seen such a beautiful face—your face is so lovely!” You tremble. Now you can be used; now you can be made to serve. Someone says, “Your intelligence has no equal—you are incomparable!” You tremble. And by calling you intelligent he has made you foolish! Now even a person of less intelligence can make you his servant. You trembled—so you became weak. You trembled—so you became dependent.
The person who trembles within in happiness and sorrow will always become a slave. His bondage is ensured. He is already bound. A small word can make him a slave. Only that person cannot be enslaved whom pleasure and pain cannot shake. No one can make him a slave in this world. There remains no way. There is no way to move him. Now swords may cut his body, but he will remain unmoving. Now showers of gold may fall at his feet, but it will have no more effect than a shower of dust. Now the throne of the whole earth may be offered to him—he will climb upon it as he would upon a heap of dust; and descend from it as from a heap of dust.
Inner strength comes from non-wavering. Inner power, inner energy, supreme strength becomes available to the one who attains the unwavering. And unwavering can only be the one who is not shaken by happiness and sorrow.
Before becoming established in Yoga, this unwavering, unshakable state must be attained. And only in this state does one have so much energy, so much power, so much freedom, so much sovereignty—one can say, one becomes one’s own self, swayaṁ—that only in this worthiness does union with Paramatma happen. Before this there is no union.
The one who trembles with pleasure and pain is so weak he cannot even bear Paramatma. So weak! A silver coin shakes his life-breath. A tiny thorn pierces right up to his very soul. A slight sidelong glance ruins his whole night’s sleep. Such a person is so weak that it is God’s compassion he does not meet Paramatma. Otherwise he would break apart, explode—be utterly destroyed.
So great an event would happen in the life of one who trembles for a rupee—one who, if he loses a rupee on the road, is thrown into difficulty! He will not have the capacity to bear such an event. He is not so crystallized, not so integrated within, not so empowered as to be able to withstand Paramatma. He does not have that worthiness.
Everything happens by law. The day you become worthy of freedom, on that very day the Supreme descends upon you. It is always ready to descend; only it waits for you. And you are trembling over such petty things—beyond all telling. Just try to reckon how trivial are the things that unbalance you! How petty the things that shake you! You are walking down the road; two men laugh a bit loudly—you are unbalanced.
A friend wants to take sannyas. He tells me every day, “I want to take it; but I am already a sannyasin in these ordinary clothes.” Many come and say, “What is lacking in us? We are sannyasins in these clothes!” I say, “Then what is the fear? Put on the ochre.” Then they tremble. Sannyas proves very powerful! They tremble at the wearing of ochre. Why?
It is the trembling in others’ eyes. “We will walk down the road—what will people say? We will go to the office—what will they say? If we go, and some peon smiles with a certain face—then what? What will people say?” The very thought terrifies. In so weak a mind, great events cannot happen.
By wearing ochre nothing great will happen. But by wearing it, one announcement is made: now one has dropped worrying about what others will say. That is a great event. There is nothing in the ochre cloth; but in this event there is much.
“What will people say!”—and the words others speak shake you so much! Words—in which there is nothing; bubbles of air. A man moves his lips. A sound is produced in the air. It strikes your ear. You tremble. So weak a soul! No—then the worthiness for great happenings cannot arise.
Krishna says: the one who remains motionless in pleasure and pain, unshaken—his consciousness is steady. And such consciousness abides in the divine; and in such consciousness the divine abides.
Let us move toward unwavering consciousness! Advance! Begin with happiness—never begin with sorrow. Begin with happiness; the matter will reach sorrow. Never begin with sorrow. From sorrow it never begins.
Look rightly at happiness and you will find that happiness is but a form of sorrow. Search within happiness and you will find that all the seeds of sorrow, all its possibilities lie hidden in happiness. And do not let yourself be shaken by happiness.
What must be done to avoid being shaken? Shall we stand with eyes closed so that happiness does not shake us? If you stand with great force, you have already been shaken!
If someone says, “I pass through darkness without fear. I close my eyes; I grip my hands tight with strength; I pass utterly unafraid”—this hand, this strength—these are signs of fear. The statement “I pass through darkness without fear” is the statement of a frightened man. Otherwise darkness would not even be noticed; he would simply pass. He does not say in the light, “I pass without fear!” He says it in darkness.
No—if you exert great force, know that you have already been shaken; that force is nothing but the vibration of fear. There is no need to apply force.
Keep this third sutra carefully in mind. Without it the seeker faces great difficulty.
If you use force and declare, “All right, let happiness come—place a garland around my neck; I will stiffen my chest, hold my breath, and remain utterly unmoved!”—you have already been shaken. You have been badly shaken. So much force for a garland! It costs four annas in the market. For four annas you needed such expenditure of the soul! And how long will you keep the fist clenched? Soon you must loosen it. How long will you hold your breath? Soon you must breathe. Then what was feared will begin afterward.
No—understanding is needed, not strength. Understanding is needed. When happiness comes, try to understand it; do not stand as an enemy using force. For the moment you stand as an enemy against something, you have conceded its strength. Do not use force—use understanding.
And remember: the less understanding there is, the more force people apply. They think they will accomplish the work of understanding by force. It never happens. A grain of understanding is stronger than a mountain of force. The work of understanding will never be done by force. Develop understanding.
When happiness comes, look at it closely, live it consciously, try to understand it. Watch how every day happiness keeps changing into sorrow. Go with it to the very end and see: it began with pleasure and ended with pain. Pass consciously through two, four, ten happinesses. You will find that a space arises in your understanding—that maturity, that ripeness—where there is no need for force. Now happiness arrives and you simply know it as sorrow. The day you live with such simplicity, an unwavering mind will be born—not out of force.
That is why many willful religionists want to seize religion by force. They never attain religion—only ego. By force, ego can be had. By understanding, ego melts.
If, with force, you declare, “All right—now I will not take happiness as happiness, nor sorrow as sorrow,” and stand with eyes shut and muscles tensed—only the ego will be strengthened. Nothing else will happen. And that ego will provide its own kind of pleasures—and its own kind of pains; the game will begin again.
Keep your attention on understanding—on prajñā. As understanding grows, as wisdom increases, then…
Buddha used three words: Pragya, Shila, Samadhi. Buddha says: as prajñā grows—as understanding increases—shīla is transformed; character changes. As character transforms, Samadhi comes near.
But the beginning must be with prajñā, with understanding. Understanding becomes shīla in the outer world, and Samadhi in the inner world. Here, as understanding grows, character is born in the outer life. And if we understand rightly, character belongs only to the one who is unwavering. The one who trembles at every little thing has no character.
I have heard: Immanuel Kant, a very wise man of Germany, went to sleep at ten at night and rose at four in the morning. He had instructed his servant that whatever happened between ten and four—even if an earthquake came—do not wake me.
But it so happened that the university where Kant taught decided to make him chancellor. A telegram arrived at midnight; the servant received it. Such a joyous news! Poor Immanuel Kant, an ordinary professor—chosen as chancellor by the academic council! The servant forgot the rule. He thought: the prohibition was for earthquakes; but this is a matter of such happiness—I must convey it.
He went and shook Kant awake and said, “My congratulations! The university has chosen you chancellor.” Kant opened his eyes, gave the servant a slap, and pulled the quilt over his head and slept again.
The servant was astonished, utterly amazed! What had happened? He had forbidden earthquakes; but this was something else!
In the morning, the first telegram Kant sent to the university office said, “Forgive me; I cannot accept this position, because due to this post even my servant fell into delusion, and I might too. I will not enter into this. Because of this post my sleep was disturbed last night; I will not disturb my sleep in future. Troubles will come with it. Troubles have already begun. For years I have never risen between ten and four.”
In the morning he said to his servant, “You are absolutely crazy!” The servant said, “But you had said, ‘Even if an earthquake comes, do not wake me.’” Kant said, “There are earthquakes of sorrow, and earthquakes of happiness. And the one who accepts the earthquakes of happiness—only in his house do the earthquakes of sorrow come; otherwise there is no reason. The beginning had been made. If last night I had thanked you with joy, I would have been lost! I would have sent the invitation, opened the door to sorrow.”
The servant said, “But why did you slap me?” Kant said, “You must have thought I would distribute sweets! I wanted to give you the message that what you came bringing as happiness ends in sorrow, so I thought I should give you the slap right now. You too should know that happiness always brings sorrow behind it—sooner or later.”
Awaken. Try to understand happiness. As understanding grows, balance comes, detachment comes, indifference comes. You will stand across the bank. A person who stands on the other shore can be called the temple of the Supreme Presence. The Supreme is already installed within him.