Upasana Ke Kshan #8
A subtle, etheric body exists within the physical
Date:
1969-06-06
Series Place: Bombay · Pune
Source Verified: Direct from the Osho Library Archives
Chapter Summary
Osho teaches that we are two-bodied: the gross physical body and a nearly identical, etheric subtle body whose contact points are chakras and whose linking force is kundalini. The subtle body can slip out accidentally in illness, trauma or sleep, or it can be separated intentionally through techniques, and beyond that lies a bodiless soul experience. Separation is not necessary for spiritual growth, yet it clarifies facts—fear of death dissolves and past lives become accessible—and it carries risks if the physical body is not disciplined. Hence Hatha Yoga's emphasis on strengthening the body, since a conscious separation uses the same medium for safe reunion; accidental separation can leave the body disordered. On chakras and kundalini: they are contact fields and a linking field, not anatomical organs, and their union produces the kundalini event that consolidates dispersed energies. On reincarnation: return happens because the astral mind carries unfinished desires that seek fulfillment in another human life; one cannot fall below human but can repeat human births until desire is exhausted. On experience versus interpretation: mystical experience is real but language and belief frame its meaning, so science must map the phenomena before interpretations settle and disagreements cease. On Buddhism and modernity: Osho suggests Buddha's notion of continuity without a permanent self resonates with scientific and Marxist critique and may outlast other religious forms as interpretation evolves.
Listen (Hindi):
1:03:59
Audio courtesy:
OshoWorld
Read this discourse in:
Also available in:
More languages:
Checking…
Questions in this Discourse
Osho, is there something like a subtle body within the body, or not?
There is only one way: while you are alive, the body and the body’s consciousness can separate. At the time of death it happens anyway. But then we have no means left to know it. The only means we have is that, while living, a person can experience being outside the body. This experience often happens accidentally—and to many people. It is a fairly common experience; it is not very unusual. Many people have it happen accidentally—during some grave illness, sometimes when a severe injury occurs...
Without any consciousness?
Yes, without any consciousness. Sometimes in an accident, sometimes under a very deep shock, many times this happening occurs spontaneously. It can also happen through effort, and there are paths for undertaking that experiment.
Yes, without any consciousness. Sometimes in an accident, sometimes under a very deep shock, many times this happening occurs spontaneously. It can also happen through effort, and there are paths for undertaking that experiment.
But this only proves that within this body there is a subtle body exactly like it. This does not yet prove the soul. As for the experience of coming out of the body: that which comes out—the other one—is also a body. And it is just like this body, but composed of extremely subtle particles—etheric. There is also a way to come out of that body, and then the experience is bodiless; that is the experience of the soul.
That is to say, there is this body, within it there is another body, and within that body is that which we call the soul.
That is to say, there is this body, within it there is another body, and within that body is that which we call the soul.
You describe your experience. Do you have the experience of the soul—not only the etheric body, but beyond the etheric body? Do you have that experience?
Yes, yes, absolutely. The experience of the etheric body can happen accidentally. But the experience beyond that is never accidental. The distinction I am making is about going beyond it—sometimes, if you fall from a car in an accident, it can happen. Sometimes at night in sleep it also happens. And some dreams are certainly journeys of the etheric body—not all, but some. Some dreams are your etheric journey; the etheric body has slipped out. All of this can happen accidentally, or with a little effort. No great effort is needed. One only needs to know the points where this body and the etheric body are joined. Those very points are called chakras. Therefore the chakras are not parts of this body; they are contact fields. The places where contact occurs between this body and that body are called chakras.
Do you mean to say that the points of contact between our physical body and the etheric body are the chakras—and that there lies the consciousness of the soul?
No, no. These centers of contact between this body and that body are what yoga calls the chakras. And the field that links those centers—what should properly be called a field—is called kundalini. In an ordinary human being these two bodies touch each other at several places. Understand that at five points these two bodies are touching. These points cannot be found by cutting open the physical body, because they are only contact fields. There is no “thing” there.
There is just a field of contact.
Yes, a field of contact between the two. That is why, by cutting open the body, you cannot find where the chakras are—they won’t show up or function that way.
These four or five or seven contact fields—if they all connect with each other, meaning the magnetic force that links them also links up within itself—then the experience of kundalini happens. The essential meaning of the kundalini experience is that the power that has accumulated at the places where these separate contacts occur—in the five, in the seven—comes to be joined. And there are methods for joining them. There are also methods for separating the five or the seven contacts.
Through these methods the two bodies can be separated very easily. Once they separate, it becomes certain that not everything dies with the death of this body.
These four or five or seven contact fields—if they all connect with each other, meaning the magnetic force that links them also links up within itself—then the experience of kundalini happens. The essential meaning of the kundalini experience is that the power that has accumulated at the places where these separate contacts occur—in the five, in the seven—comes to be joined. And there are methods for joining them. There are also methods for separating the five or the seven contacts.
Through these methods the two bodies can be separated very easily. Once they separate, it becomes certain that not everything dies with the death of this body.
Is it possible that for some people who have been trying to separate these two bodies, then these two bodies cannot be reunited?
Yes, there is this danger sometimes. There is sometimes this danger. And many times it can happen that in this attempt they cannot be joined back. But generally, generally, such a danger is not there. In some conditions this situation can arise: if the body is in such a state that some of its parts have been completely ruined or can no longer function, and the moment the contact is withdrawn they begin to disintegrate, then rejoining will be difficult. And that is why Hatha Yoga has laid so much emphasis on the body. The effort to discipline the body wholly and completely was precisely so that, when the other body separates, there is no fear of the body becoming disordered. Then there is no obstacle to rejoining.
And one who separates the bodies knowingly—who very consciously separates that body from this body—does not face much difficulty. Because the very medium by which one separates is, in reverse, the medium by which one joins again. But when it happens accidentally... as in my case, my experience is accidental. And then a...
And one who separates the bodies knowingly—who very consciously separates that body from this body—does not face much difficulty. Because the very medium by which one separates is, in reverse, the medium by which one joins again. But when it happens accidentally... as in my case, my experience is accidental. And then a...
But afterwards, deliberately...
Yes. By now I have made many experiments—after that I experimented a great deal. Now there is no question; now everything is clear. Not only is it clear to me, but knowing you and your body I can say clearly that by doing this it can happen. Now it is not a matter of much difficulty. But the first experience that happened to me was not through my effort. That is, I had no idea about it. And in the deep experiments of meditation, sometimes it can happen accidentally to anyone. To anyone.
In order to have spiritual experience, is it necessary to separate these two bodies?
No, not at all. Not at all. Therefore I consider it neither necessary nor of any great value to do so.
(The audio recording of the question is not clear.)
Yes, some facts become so clear through that experience that in working it becomes very...
(The audio recording of the question is not clear.)
Yes, some facts become so clear through that experience that in working it becomes very...
The fear of death has gone.
Yes, the fear of death drops completely. And once this experience happens even once, it becomes very easy to enter your past lives—something that cannot happen without this experience.
Do you accept the theory of reincarnation?
Yes, yes—absolutely. Absolutely.
Some people believe that there is life after death. Then does man come back as a man, or evolve into a higher man, or is there a possibility of going back to...
No, there is no going back. No going back. No, there is no going back. No human being can go below the human—he can go above. But as a human he can be repeated many times. He does not go lower, he does not go backward.
Is it not possible that a person may become a dog...?
No, not at all—not at all possible. Absolutely not possible.
How is it that a person returns as a human being?
Yes, there are reasons for it. There are reasons. In fact, there is what we call the astral mind—the mind of the astral body; which means there are two bodies. And just as this physical body has a brain attached to it, that body has its own mind, which maintains a field of contact with this brain. That astral mind—just as when you go to sleep at night hungry, the mind keeps revolving around food all night; on waking, the first thought that arises is of food, and the first thing your body does is look for food.
While living in this body, whatever desires your astral mind could not fulfill—left incomplete or unexpressed—those desires will keep pursuing it. At the moment of death—death means nothing more than a deep sleep—those very desires that this mind had wanted and could not complete will stand there with it. Just as at night, when you go to sleep, whatever you wished for during the day and could not do stands by you.
And those desires will then try to make this mind seize a human body, because only in a human body can those desires be fulfilled.
While living in this body, whatever desires your astral mind could not fulfill—left incomplete or unexpressed—those desires will keep pursuing it. At the moment of death—death means nothing more than a deep sleep—those very desires that this mind had wanted and could not complete will stand there with it. Just as at night, when you go to sleep, whatever you wished for during the day and could not do stands by you.
And those desires will then try to make this mind seize a human body, because only in a human body can those desires be fulfilled.
Theory of hell and heaven...
Yes, I will talk about it.
Yes, I will talk about it.
(The audio recording of the question is not clear.)
Yes, yes, I understand. So if in a human life some appetites and cravings remain unfulfilled, consciousness will keep returning to human life. Until there is freedom from those desires, liberation from them, it will keep returning. The mind always goes back to where the desire is.
(The audio recording of the question is not clear.)
For a long time—yes, it will remain. And the reason, the only reason, is this: whatever religious experiences there are, until they are validated by scientific experimentation, the conflict will continue. Further, a religious experience is one thing, and a religious interpretation is quite another.
I had an experience. How I interpret that experience could be wrong. And tomorrow science may demonstrate that the interpretation was wrong. And as soon as the interpretation is declared wrong, my experience too will be taken as wrong. But interpretation is an entirely different matter.
One more thing: a man comes into this room; he has no idea about air-conditioning. He enters this room. Outside everything was hot; the other room was hot. He comes into this room, and this room is cool. There is nothing false in his experience, because he found this room cool. But he knows nothing of air-conditioning, and the man goes away taking it to be a miracle. That is his interpretation. He deems it a miracle—that a sage is staying there, therefore the room is cool.
Yes, yes, I understand. So if in a human life some appetites and cravings remain unfulfilled, consciousness will keep returning to human life. Until there is freedom from those desires, liberation from them, it will keep returning. The mind always goes back to where the desire is.
(The audio recording of the question is not clear.)
For a long time—yes, it will remain. And the reason, the only reason, is this: whatever religious experiences there are, until they are validated by scientific experimentation, the conflict will continue. Further, a religious experience is one thing, and a religious interpretation is quite another.
I had an experience. How I interpret that experience could be wrong. And tomorrow science may demonstrate that the interpretation was wrong. And as soon as the interpretation is declared wrong, my experience too will be taken as wrong. But interpretation is an entirely different matter.
One more thing: a man comes into this room; he has no idea about air-conditioning. He enters this room. Outside everything was hot; the other room was hot. He comes into this room, and this room is cool. There is nothing false in his experience, because he found this room cool. But he knows nothing of air-conditioning, and the man goes away taking it to be a miracle. That is his interpretation. He deems it a miracle—that a sage is staying there, therefore the room is cool.
This is an interpretation.
Yes, it is an interpretation. But he is not at fault for the room being cold. And if tomorrow he is proved wrong, and a scientist proves that no room can become cold because a monk stayed there, then that man will be shown to be wrong. And the very being proved wrong will create a great difficulty for him, because his experience is that the room was cold.
Yes, it is an interpretation. But he is not at fault for the room being cold. And if tomorrow he is proved wrong, and a scientist proves that no room can become cold because a monk stayed there, then that man will be shown to be wrong. And the very being proved wrong will create a great difficulty for him, because his experience is that the room was cold.
But as to why the room was cold, about that he has nothing... I mean, you understand, don’t you? It is such an uncharted matter that when a person goes there and has some experience, the experience is there, but he relates it, interprets it; on returning he says something.
Could the theory of reincarnation also be an interpretation?
Yes, yes, that possibility exists. It exists because, for example, Christians and Muslims do not accept it. Their experience is the same, but their interpretation is entirely different. The Hindus and Jains interpret it one way; the Buddhists also have their own interpretation. And yet the Buddhists are not willing to accept the soul in the way the Hindus and Jains do.
Is the experience the same?
Yes, their experience is exactly the same. The Buddhists’ experience is exactly what the Jains’ is, or the Hindus’. But Buddhists are not ready to accept the soul. And there is not the slightest difference in the experience.
Yes, their experience is exactly the same. The Buddhists’ experience is exactly what the Jains’ is, or the Hindus’. But Buddhists are not ready to accept the soul. And there is not the slightest difference in the experience.
So the conflict with science will continue until we have a complete scientific survey of the whole thing—of that experience. And once a scientific survey has been done, many things we believed were true will turn out to be wrong. But the experience will not be wrong; only a new interpretation of the experience will begin. A new interpretation will begin.
Now, as I say—take the Bible, for example: the Bible says that the earth is the center of the entire universe. And I hold that this comes from some deep experience; it is not a lie. Even now. That is, even in these three hundred years...
Now, as I say—take the Bible, for example: the Bible says that the earth is the center of the entire universe. And I hold that this comes from some deep experience; it is not a lie. Even now. That is, even in these three hundred years...
Interpolation by his followers. No, no, no. Not at all. Not at all. I am not interpolating.
(The audio recording of the question is not clear.)
No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that this statement carries a wholly different meaning. It does not mean that the sun and the moon and the stars are all revolving around it; that is not meaningful. This point is very metaphysical and has quite another meaning. As far as life is concerned, meaning is the center. As far as life is concerned, there, meaning is the center.
No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that this statement carries a wholly different meaning. It does not mean that the sun and the moon and the stars are all revolving around it; that is not meaningful. This point is very metaphysical and has quite another meaning. As far as life is concerned, meaning is the center. As far as life is concerned, there, meaning is the center.
There is no life on the other planets.
Yes. That is to say, the experience of those who have gone very deeply into life is that there is no life on any planet. And it is also the experience of those who have gone very deeply into life that each planet has its own soul. Just as every single body has its own soul, so each planet is a body, and the body—the planet—has its own soul. Just as Earth has its own soul.
Animals also have a soul. Yes, animals certainly have a soul. So does this earth, so does the moon. Those who have worked very deeply in this direction of life have experienced that Earth has its own soul. All planets have their own soul. And from the perspective of the soul—from the perspective of that living entity—Earth is the center, and the sun and the moon are all revolving around it.
This idea is in no way in conflict with Galileo.
Doesn’t it have any connection?
Yes, it has no connection at all. But the idea—the interpretation that was bound to be made—was that the sun goes around the earth. And when Galileo discovered that this was false, that it is the earth that goes around the sun, a conflict arose between the two positions, and the interpreter of religion was utterly defeated. Defeated, because here the facts were right in front of you; you had no facts.
Yes, it has no connection at all. But the idea—the interpretation that was bound to be made—was that the sun goes around the earth. And when Galileo discovered that this was false, that it is the earth that goes around the sun, a conflict arose between the two positions, and the interpreter of religion was utterly defeated. Defeated, because here the facts were right in front of you; you had no facts.
But perhaps in two to four hundred years, when our vision regarding living beings becomes deeper, I hold that there is a fundamental difference between the standpoints of Galileo and Jesus Christ, and that Jesus’ standpoint does not conflict with Galileo’s anywhere. It is an altogether different matter.
The dimensions are different.
Yes, the dimensions are different. And then this conflict will continue. For example, if I say there are seven chakras in the body—yes, in the body—immediately the physiologist says, “We have examined the body thoroughly, inch by inch; there is no such thing as chakras there.”
Just as hydrogen and oxygen make water, and water has properties different from hydrogen and oxygen—in a similar sense, the human body exists, then it decomposes, and nothing is left.
Yes, yes, that is what they are saying; that is exactly what they are saying. And as far as they go, they are not wrong. But beyond that there may be something more, which is not coming into what they are presently saying. It does appear in what some visionaries speak of—and the difficulty with visionaries is that they cannot provide proof.
Now, for example, if I say that I have had a certain experience. Suppose a man has fallen in love, and he says, “I am experiencing love.” And if a physiologist says, “Where are you experiencing love? If we cut up and examine your whole body, we do not find anywhere that you are experiencing love. Neither does your heart show anything, nor your lungs, nowhere do we find it.”
Now, for example, if I say that I have had a certain experience. Suppose a man has fallen in love, and he says, “I am experiencing love.” And if a physiologist says, “Where are you experiencing love? If we cut up and examine your whole body, we do not find anywhere that you are experiencing love. Neither does your heart show anything, nor your lungs, nowhere do we find it.”
Not even in psychology? You haven't understood me! I'm talking about physiology. Physiology—suppose you say that you are experiencing love and that something is happening within you which had never happened until yesterday, before you fell in love. If physiology were to examine and investigate you, you could not prove that you are having any experience of love. Because it would say: when you were not experiencing love, the elements in your body and the structure of your body were exactly the same; the structure is the same, the elements are the same. Compared to when you were not in love, the experience of love has made no difference in your body. Therefore we cannot accept that something new is happening in your body. You understand what I mean, don't you?
Physiology will say—nothing is really happening. You are in delusion. It is illusory. Or you are interpreting something else, and it will interpret it differently. It will say: what you are calling love and all that may be nothing at all—only that some new hormones have appeared in your body, and because of them the commotion that has arisen makes you think love is happening. It is merely the agitation of new hormones; there is nothing like love-and-such in it. And it may well be that what they say is also right. And it may also be right that this experience you call love would not occur if the hormones were separated out.
Let there be a situation, a medium.
Yes, let there be a medium, a situation. Suppose hormones are creating a situation that would not exist once the hormones are removed.
Yes, let there be a medium, a situation. Suppose hormones are creating a situation that would not exist once the hormones are removed.
For example, I am speaking here. My speaking is one thing, but if arrangements were made so that no waves are created in between—if a vacuum were created here—then my speaking would not be heard by you; only the lips would move. Then you would say there was no speaking at all, it was only the wave in between. That would be a mistake.
Like energy.
Yes, like energy. The difficulty is that the scientific methods so far grasp whatever is material—that’s fine. But whatever is immaterial slips beyond their grasp. When it comes into someone’s experience, today that experience will find itself in conflict.
Yes, like energy. The difficulty is that the scientific methods so far grasp whatever is material—that’s fine. But whatever is immaterial slips beyond their grasp. When it comes into someone’s experience, today that experience will find itself in conflict.
But slowly, science keeps developing. And as science develops, the language to express religious experience also develops, because we then have all the resources of a new language. The truth is, the great religious experiencers of the world all belonged to the pre-scientific age. Their entire language is poetic. The reason is that poetry was the only language available; there was no other. So those religious experiences had to be expressed in the language of poetry.
Nowadays a new language—mathematics—is emerging, developing. In a hundred, two hundred, or four hundred years, when mathematics becomes a language, a complete language, there will be an advantage: those who speak of religious experience will be able to do so in the language of mathematics, in the language of physics, in the language of psychology. Today it has become possible to say something in the language of psychology. But two hundred years ago psychology had no language.
So what I am saying is that experience is one thing; interpretation is quite another. Four of us may go to the same place and return with four interpretations, though the experience was one and the same.
Nowadays a new language—mathematics—is emerging, developing. In a hundred, two hundred, or four hundred years, when mathematics becomes a language, a complete language, there will be an advantage: those who speak of religious experience will be able to do so in the language of mathematics, in the language of physics, in the language of psychology. Today it has become possible to say something in the language of psychology. But two hundred years ago psychology had no language.
So what I am saying is that experience is one thing; interpretation is quite another. Four of us may go to the same place and return with four interpretations, though the experience was one and the same.
There are theories about whether the soul exists or not, and about reincarnation. There are also interpretations—even regarding the very existence of the soul...?
Yes, because Buddha interprets it in such a way that the very existence of the soul is put into question—at least in the sense in which others understand it. What Buddha says is that there is no entity like the soul; there is only a stream, not an entity. For example, we light a lamp at night and in the morning we say we are extinguishing the same lamp. Buddha says this is untrue. That lamp has been going out every moment, and a new flame has been arising. The light kept changing; the flame kept changing. It is not the same flame that you lit in the evening. The one you extinguish in the morning is the progeny, the offspring—its continuity—but the flame itself is altogether different. This flame has no knowledge of what the evening’s flame was. It is the same stream.
But I think they are describing the characteristics of the soul. But the problem is whether the soul is there or not?
No, no—you have not understood what I mean. If we ask whether the flame is there or not, Buddha would say: the flame is there, but the flame is constantly changing; the flame is a constant continuity.
Change in the soul is constant. But the Hindus and the Jains are not willing to accept this.
No—the Hindus and the Jains are not willing to accept that.
But is there a soul or not?
No, no, no. You have not understood. There will be a fundamental difference between the two. If you say that the soul changes, then the Jains and the Hindus will say: then there is no soul at all. Their contention is that then there is no entity left, only continuity remains. And continuity is not an entity. That is, the Jains and the Hindus say that if...
This could be static too, right? You didn't understand.
You haven't understood.
Because the soul is dynamic.
No, no—however dynamic it may be.
Because it is a living entity...
No, no. If there is continuity, that continuity can break. And that continuity, Buddha says, will break. Therefore after nirvana the soul will not remain. That is why Buddha says that the very meaning of nirvana is this; nirvana means: the lamp going out. The word “nirvana” also means: cessation.
Existence has gone.
Yes, existence has gone.
Yes, existence has gone.
(The audio recording of the question is not clear.)
These are entirely Hindu interpretations of the Buddha. As for what the Buddha says—what he says is this—and in this sense his statement is very scientific. And in the coming scientific age the Buddha’s interpretation will be very appealing, and it is already appealing.
These are entirely Hindu interpretations of the Buddha. As for what the Buddha says—what he says is this—and in this sense his statement is very scientific. And in the coming scientific age the Buddha’s interpretation will be very appealing, and it is already appealing.
This is very disappointing.
It is not disappointing.
The base of religion has gone.
No, no—that’s it, that’s it; when our assumptions harden, it becomes disappointing. My point—Buddha’s point—is this: take any single thing. Continuity means it is composed of parts coming together, just as water is formed by the union of oxygen and hydrogen. Water is not an entity. According to Buddha, water has no independent being; it is only a conjunction. And if hydrogen and oxygen separate, the water is no more.
That is also Marxism...
Yes, yes—that is why Marx and Buddha are very close, extremely close. At the very foundation of China’s becoming Marxist lies Buddhism. For India to become communist there is an obstacle—a great obstacle, a very great obstacle. And the reason is that the Hindu and Jain interpretations are entirely different. The Buddha’s interpretation is the closest to Marx. If Marxism comes into the world, then the religion that can survive afterward is Buddhism—neither Christianity nor Islam nor Hinduism nor Jainism. After Marxism, if any religion has a possibility of surviving in the world, it is Buddha’s.
I recently gave a lecture on Marx and Buddha, and there was a great uproar. I gave one lecture...
I recently gave a lecture on Marx and Buddha, and there was a great uproar. I gave one lecture...
Where?
Just recently in Jabalpur I gave a three-lecture series—Marx and Buddha. My point is simply this: Buddha came before his time. Buddha’s relevance is after Marx, not before. And the day the world fully understands and accepts Marx, after that the acceptance of Buddha is inevitable. Then one cannot escape Buddha. Because after the acceptance of Marxism, whatever further inquiry there is will lead into Buddhism. And the reason for that is, its...
Buddhism is an ascetic view of life.
No, no, no. That is another matter. That is another matter! Not in the sense in which I am speaking—not in this context. It does not belong here. There are, you know, twenty-five aspects of Buddha—twenty-five aspects of Buddha. In some respects there will be no correspondence at all. But in very basic matters there is a very deep correspondence.
His views about marriage and his Middle Path, his ascetic life. But Marxism believes that one should ignore marriage and morality...
No, no, no. There will be differences in twenty-five points—and there should be differences in twenty-five points, because there is a gap of two thousand years. Because whatever even the greatest person says, however far-reaching his vision, he still speaks in the forms of the society he lives in, within the assumptions he lives in, among the people he lives with. It is completely natural that all of that will weigh upon what he says. He cannot escape it. And then he says his piece and goes; afterwards, tradition starts forming. It keeps adding and adding thousands of things.
As far as Buddha’s personality is concerned, he is not ascetic; he is absolutely anti-ascetic. But the whole Indian psyche is ascetic. And the people who were gathering around Buddha were all coming from ascetic traditions. And those who interpreted him and built the scriptures were all Brahmins. Now, this is quite a curious thing. The entire scriptural construction of Mahavira and Buddha was done by Brahmins. And both Mahavira and Buddha are anti-Brahmin. Yet their whole lineages of disciples are Brahmins. Therefore, inevitably, a muddle is bound to happen. Because it is not just your question; the entire Brahmin mind comes trailing along from behind. Look at Buddha’s face—this man does not appear ascetic. And his whole understanding—yes, at one time he entered the current of austerities—but he turned back.
As far as Buddha’s personality is concerned, he is not ascetic; he is absolutely anti-ascetic. But the whole Indian psyche is ascetic. And the people who were gathering around Buddha were all coming from ascetic traditions. And those who interpreted him and built the scriptures were all Brahmins. Now, this is quite a curious thing. The entire scriptural construction of Mahavira and Buddha was done by Brahmins. And both Mahavira and Buddha are anti-Brahmin. Yet their whole lineages of disciples are Brahmins. Therefore, inevitably, a muddle is bound to happen. Because it is not just your question; the entire Brahmin mind comes trailing along from behind. Look at Buddha’s face—this man does not appear ascetic. And his whole understanding—yes, at one time he entered the current of austerities—but he turned back.
But then he left his wife and child...
Yes, yes, yes. That does not necessarily make one an ascetic. That does not necessarily make one an ascetic! That is only our interpretation. This is what I say: it depends on our interpretation—what interpretation we give. What do we interpret?
A man may leave a woman because the woman was pleasurable and he does not want to take pleasure; then he is an ascetic. And a man may leave a woman because the pleasure has been taken and now there is no pleasure left; then he is no ascetic. The situation can also be the reverse—that a man is so troubled by a woman, suffering so much, that he leaves; then he is not an ascetic, he is a hedonist. That is, merely leaving a woman settles nothing, does it! I might be so troubled by a woman that I find my very pleasure in leaving her.
A man may leave a woman because the woman was pleasurable and he does not want to take pleasure; then he is an ascetic. And a man may leave a woman because the pleasure has been taken and now there is no pleasure left; then he is no ascetic. The situation can also be the reverse—that a man is so troubled by a woman, suffering so much, that he leaves; then he is not an ascetic, he is a hedonist. That is, merely leaving a woman settles nothing, does it! I might be so troubled by a woman that I find my very pleasure in leaving her.
But the world will think that...
The world will think that by leaving the woman I suffered a lot. Whereas, as far as I understand, I became happy after leaving her. And if I had stayed with her, I would have turned ascetic. You understand my point, don’t you? So it depends on what interpretation we give.
But many followers didn't use to marry; they are against marriage.
No, no. To marry or not to marry is not, in itself, asceticism. The truth is, if one looks carefully and tries to understand, the way the institution of marriage has functioned so far is a kind of tapascharya—a penance, an austerity. The way marriage has been till now, it is an austerity; it is asceticism. To marry, as marriage has been up to now, means to pass through great hardship and sorrow. There is no happiness in it—only suffering, a continuous suffering.
And it may well be that someone who wishes to remain happy does not marry—“Sorry!” That is simply a sign of intelligence. You understand what I mean, don’t you?
And my own view is that, for now, marriage is not joy. For now, marriage is not joy. As of now, marriage has certainly been suffering—and it is suffering. Yes, we should create a world in which even marriage becomes a joy. But for that we will have to transform marriage completely—change it altogether. Only when it is no more than friendship can it be joyful. And only when sex is no more than fun will joy be possible.
And it may well be that someone who wishes to remain happy does not marry—“Sorry!” That is simply a sign of intelligence. You understand what I mean, don’t you?
And my own view is that, for now, marriage is not joy. For now, marriage is not joy. As of now, marriage has certainly been suffering—and it is suffering. Yes, we should create a world in which even marriage becomes a joy. But for that we will have to transform marriage completely—change it altogether. Only when it is no more than friendship can it be joyful. And only when sex is no more than fun will joy be possible.
Does that mean you accept Bertrand Russell's view on marriage?
To a great extent. To a great extent.