The Fish in the Sea is Not Thirsty Talks on Kabir

Now, for his dream, and a mother of the dream, he is threatening the country: "I will commit suicide if you don't listen to me." But rather than saying it directly, "I will commit suicide," he says he will fast unto death.

And these people are thought to be saintly, and these people are thought to be great preachers of non-violence. That's exactly what his master, Mahatma Gandhi, did his whole life; now he is perpetuating the rotten tradition. For these thirty years at least, India has suffered from these people -- and there seems to be no end to it.

This is called non-violence. If I threaten somebody that "I will kill you if you don't listen to me," I will be caught by the police. I will be a criminal against the law. But if I threaten that "I will kill myself if you don't listen to me," this is thought to be some holy act.

This is strange that nobody says, "These people should immediately be caught and brought into the court -- because they are threatening suicide, and it is a crime against the law." Any attempt to commit suicide is a crime against the law. But Vinoba Bhave is a saint.

Morarji Desai went to see him to persuade him: "Don't do it!" because he himself has been doing it, the same thing. That's how he bas come in power: by threatening to commit suicide.

These are subtle ways of coercion, violence. Who is one single person to decide for the whole country? Then somebody can say, "I will fast unto death unless everybody stops smoking -- because my mother appeared in the dream and she said, 'Son, this great work you have to do.'"

Coercion becomes non-violence. A threat to commit suicide becomes a beautiful thing when you call it 'fast unto death'! And rather than being caught by the police and brought before the court, the prime minister runs, the ministers are running and everybody is trying to persuade him: "Don't go on your fast unto death." And nobody is saying that this is a crime!

These are rationalizations. One can do anything if one has a cunning and clever mind to rationalize it.

Malti, sometimes you may be rationalizing -- watch it. But my own experience of women is that they are not great rationalizers -- men are bigger rationalizers, because women live more intuitively, more instinctively, and man lives more through the head, through reason.

Women don't bother much about logic. Their behaviour is more or less illogical -- instinctive, spontaneous. They don't try to masquerade it in a logical way; they simply jump from one point to another without bothering about the Aristotelian process of logic. They simply jump! Their leaps are quantum, from one point to another. You cannot see what the bridge is, how they manage to get from one point to another. Their ways are totally different from men's.

Malti, more possibility is that your husband is rationalizing, that this is his way of putting you down. He uses philosophical jargon: rationalization. And, of course, you become afraid -- you have done something wrong. I can't think, Malti, that you can do much of a rationalization; women don't indulge in it. But it is better to understand, because to be with a husband who is a professor of philosophy it is better to understand what rationalization is. And now, next time, whatsoever your husband says, you simply say, "This is a rationalization,' and watch what happens.
Just the other day I was reading about a psychiatrist who was mending his car, and his boy was playing with a little girl from the neighbourhood on the balcony on the first story. And down below he was tinkering with his car.

Suddenly the boy pushed the girl from the balcony and she fell down on the ground. The father was, of course, angry. He looked up and before he could say anything, the boy asked, "Dad, can you tell me why I did it? You are supposed to be the psychoanalyst, psychiatrist -- tell me why I did it."

But it is good to understand what it is, and if you indulge in it, it is better not to indulge in it. It is a camouflage. It is better to be authentic, true, rather than hiding yourself behind smoke screens.

Now, it will be good if Vinoba Bhave simply says, "I want to impose my will on this country," that will be simple. "I am ready to die if my will is not accepted." But that he will not say, "I want to impose my will on this country," because then he will be exposed: "Who are you to impose your will? This is a democracy. You cannot impose your will. You have a single vote -- a single vote equal to everybody else's vote. Nobody's vote is more valuable, so who are you?"

But this is how this goes on....

Morarji Desai wants to impose prohibition on the country. Who are you to impose such things? Then where is freedom and where is democracy? Yes, if you are against alcohol, teach, express yourself, argue, persuade... that's what democracy means. Persuade people! If you are against cow slaughter, go around and persuade people not to eat cow meat. But threatening that you will commit suicide is very totalitarian dictatorial, undemocratic. It is a crime against the people, against the law, against democracy.

But you can hide the fact in religious terminology, you can go on doing something with a mask. And people wear masks: rationalization is one of the ways of wearing masks.

Be true. Be authentic. There is no need to be untrue, because the more untrue you become, the farther and farther you will be from God.

I am not worried about your husband -- I am worried about your being farther and farther away from God. If you indulge in strategies like rationalization, you will never come closer to your own inner self where God resides. Drop all false faces so that you can find your original face. And to find the original face is the greatest blessing and the greatest benediction in life.

OSHO, WHEN THIS QUESTION ARISES -- WHO AM I? -- I GET VERY AFRAID. IS THERE SOMETHING TO BE SAID ABOUT IT?

THIS QUESTION MAKES EVERYBODY AFRAID. It is nothing exceptional; it is absolutely the case with everybody. Whoever wants to go deep into the question, into the quest, of "Who am I?" is bound to feel fear at a certain point. Why? Because there comes a point where you cross the boundary of the ego and enter into the world of egolessness. That point is the point of great fear -- because it looks like death. And, in fact, it is a kind of death: the ego disappears.

And up to now that has been your identity. Up to now that's what you have been thinking you are. And suddenly it starts evaporating. A great fear grips the heart: "I am dying!" because your identity is dying. You are not really dying; in fact, you are being born. It is a rebirth, it is a true birth.

It is like the seed dying into the soil. The seed must be feeling afraid, nervous, trembling. How can the seed trust that once he is gone there will be a great tree and great flowering? The seed will not be there to witness it; no seed has ever witnessed it, so how can this seed believe and trust?

And the same happens with the ego: the ego cannot trust that there is anything more than itself And the ego is dying, and the ego starts breathing its last, and you become afraid. Many people turn back from that point, rush back out.

This is going to happen to every meditator. Hence, Dada, your question is significant, very significant. Every meditator has to encounter this situation, this challenge. ManY times people come to the point from where they would have entered into God, but they could not risk, they could not gather courage. They became afraid, scared; they rushed out.

You have to take the risk. And I tell you, from my own experience, it is not death. Yes, it is a death to the ego, but the death of the ego is the birth of the soul. You will die as a drop, but you will be born as the ocean. It is worth it. You will be dying only as a limited being, as a defined being, and you will be born as undefined, undefinable.

Yes, you will disappear, with all your neurosis, psychosis. with all your tensions, anxieties, anguishes: you will disappear with all your problems, worries; you will disappear as you have known yourself up to now. But your disappearance is only a change of garments, and you will be getting closer to your reality, deeper into your reality. You will get more rooted into being.

That's the whole search!
You ask me: WHEN THIS QUESTION ARISES -- WHO AM I? -- I GET VERY AFRAID.
It is natural. It is a good sign that you are coming closer to the boundary. You may be standing exactly on the boundary; that's why whenever the question arises, immediately you become afraid. Feel blessed that you are so close to the boundary from where a totally new world and a totally new life can have a start. Just one single step... and you will be a new man, and you will be an original man. Just a single step, and all the garbage that the society has dumped on you will have dropped, and you will be just a pure consciousness. You will have wings! Now you are just crawling on the earth... and then you will be able to soar high towards the sun.

To be with a Master simply means to learn trust, to learn the art of risking, to learn the ways of adventuring into the unknown. Yes, the sea is uncharted, and it is dangerous to leave the shore, but it is only the people who leave the shore who taste something of immortality. It is only the people who take the risk of going into danger who really live; others only pass through life, but they really don't live. Others only vegetate; others only move through empty gestures.

So now this is a very decisive moment for you. You can go back, you can cling to your identity, or you can go ahead, not looking hack at all. Be courageous! I can only say this much: that the same has happened to me, the same fear -- it is human. I had also gone back and forth. To cross this line is really difficult. But sooner or later, one decides -- because going and coming back does not help. And once you have come so close to the line, you cannot be satisfied with your ordinary life any more. So you can go out, but there you will find everything has become meaningless. Now you will be in a dilemma.

And this is the work of a Master: to create the dilemma. The without becomes meaningless, and the within seems to be dangerous. To live the ordinary life again becomes impossible, and to take the jump into the new also seems impossible. But sooner or later, one decides to take the jump -- because what is the point of clinging to something that has become meaningless, which has lost all significance! How long can you cling to it?

The Master waits, the Master remains patient. He allows you to go back and forth, he goes on watching that you are shunting in and out. But he knows one thing: that every day the outer will go on losing its significance more and more. One day it will be utterly useless, absurd, to be there. And as the outer loses significance, the inner will become more and more magnetic -- simultaneously the process happens.

And one day it becomes irresistible -- one has to cross the line. And that day is the greatest day in a human being's life, when you drop your old identity and enter into the unknown -- you have encountered God, you have come home.

OSHO, I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT AN AMERICAN, A CHINESE, AN AFRICAN, A SWEDE, AN INDIAN, COULD BE HAPPY AND CONTENT AND COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER DESPITE THEIR VARYING COLOURS, HABITS, BELIEFS, ETCETERA, JUST AS LONG AS THEY WERE NATURAL AND HONEST WITH THEMSELVES AND EACH OTHER. WHY IS MANKIND MAKING THIS IMPOSSIBLE FOR MANKIND?

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE BELIEFS and still live in peace. The belief is the root cause of all conflict. Only a world of agnostic seekers can be one. Believers cannot allow the world to be one.

For example, the Christian believes that it is only through Christ that salvation is possible -- now, how is a Mohammedan going to tolerate it? The very idea is a danger for him. He believes that only through Mohammed is true salvation possible. And how can this be tolerated by the Buddhist who thinks that except for Buddha there has never been another enlightened person? Buddha and Mahavira lived together, they were contemporaries, but Buddhists don't think that Mahavira is enlightened; neither do Jainas, the followers of Mahavira, think that Buddha is enlightened. Now, how is a Jaina going to believe that Jesus is enlightened? -- because he is not a vegetarian, he is a non-vegetarian. How can a non-vegetarian become enlightened? The belief of the Jaina is that one who becomes enlightened is bound to be vegetarian. How can he kill? His belief is going to become a barrier.

And ask the Christian -- he cannot believe in Mahavira because he never helped the poor. Just standing under a tree naked, meditating with closed eyes, looks very selfish to the Christian. Mahavira should have opened at least a few hospitals, schools; he never did anything. He did not do any miracles either -- giving eyes to the blind, raising dead people back to life. What kind of enlightened person is he? No miracle, no service to humanity -- only talks about non-violence, but no compassion in his acts, in deed. The Christian cannot believe that Buddha is enlightened. What service has he done for humanity...?

Now, these differing beliefs divide people. Belief is the way of division. Humanity can be one only when people drop beliefs. And that's what I am trying to do here. Be an enquirer, don't be a believer. Enquire into truth, but don't start with a prejudice -- don't start as a Christian or a Mohammedan or a Hindu.
Darius, you say: I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT AN AMERICAN, A CHINESE, AN AFRICAN, A SWEDE, AN ITALIAN, ALL COULD BE HAPPY AND CONTENT AND COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER DESPITE THEIR VARYING COLOURS, HABITS, BELIEFS, ETCETERA, JUST AS LONG AS THEY WERE NATURAL AND HONEST WITH THEMSELVES AND EACH OTHER.

The American believes in the American way of life, and the Indian believes in the Indian way of life -- the conflict is there. And the Indian believes that India is the only holy country in the world, the only religious country in the world. American. The very word smells of materialism. To the Indian mind, the word 'American' means something absolutely irreligious, unholy. The American represents to him the man of indulgence.

And to the American the Indian symbolizes snobbery, hypocrisy, egoism. How can these people meet? The American has to drop his being American, and the Indian has to drop his being Indian. We have to start thinking in terms of the whole earth. Religious beliefs, political beliefs, beliefs of all kinds, divide people. And, hence, all beliefs are dangerous, poisonous.

You can see here, Darius, people of all races, all countries, all religions, meeting -- with NO problem. And never is it being told to them: "Be tolerant of others" -- because the very idea of being tolerant carries intolerance in it. Why should it be told to somebody: "Be tolerant of others"? It simply means that there is intolerance and one has to learn to tolerate.

It is never told here to anybody that Hinduism and Christianity and Islam all mean the same thing; to say so means that you are suspicious. Mahatma Gandhi used to say that the Koran and the Gita and the Dhammapada, they all mean the same thing. And with great effort he used to try to find similarities -- why bother? The very effort shows that there is suspicion. And the effort cannot succeed, because they are not similar. The Koran has its own beauty and the Gita has its own beauty, and they are not similar, not at all.

Trying to impose similarity on such unique, original scriptures is really sickening. How can Mahavira and Krishna have the same message? It is not. Just think if Arjuna had told Mahavira, "I want to renounce the world and the war and I want to go to the forest" -- Mahavira would have immediately initiated him into renunciation. He would have said, "That's what you should have done. It is already late; but, still, good. War is violence, and it is good that an insight is born in you -- renounce the world and go to the forest."

But Krishna persuaded him not to go to the forest: "Fight the war because this is your duty. And your very being is such that you can only be a warrior; your type is such. Renunciation won't suit you, it won't fit you. You will be a misfit, and even in the forest you will start hunting; you will not be able to meditate, you will hunt. I know you well, I know you from your very childhood. And all this nonsense that you are talking about is nothing but a rationalization. You are not against war!" And he was not -- Krishna was right, his insight was deep -- he was not against war. He was really against killing his own people.

The war was a family war between brothers, and on both the sides were relatives. Because the fight was between cousin-brothers, all the relatives had to divide -- a few had gone to this side, a few to that side. One brother was on this side, another brother was on that side. Even Krishna himself had divided; his army was fighting on the other side and he himself was fighting with Arjuna, because both were his friends and both had asked his help. So he had said, "You can choose: one can take my army and one can take me."

Arjuna's own teacher from whom he had learnt all that he knew about war, who had made him a perfect warrior, Drona, he was on the other side -- his own master, from whom he had learnt archery, he was fighting on the other side. It was really a family war. And Arjuna was not against war: he was against killing one's own people. Seeing the whole war-field full of his own people -- a few on this side, a few on that side -- and both would be killed and many would be killed -- he started thinking, "What is the point of it all? Killing my own family! It is better I should renounce."

He was not against violence. If his own people had not been involved, he would have enjoyed the war like anything. Krishna persuaded him to see the fact that he was rationalizing; all this nonsense talk about non-violence, no war, peace, renunciation, was just a rationalization. He forced him to see the trick of his mind.

Now, how can you say Mahavira and Krishna are saying the same thing? They are not saying the same thing.

My own experience is this, that all those who have become enlightened in the world -- and Moses is enlightened, and Zarathustra is enlightened, and Lao Tzu is enlightened and Mohammed and Jesus and Krishna, Buddha, Mahavira, Kabir, and many many more -- what they have experienced is the same. But still their personalities are so different, their individuality is so unique, that their expressions are utterly different and you cannot force by ally strategy to make it appear that they are saying the same thing -- they are not.

Their experience is the same, their ultimate experience is the same, but their choice of how life should be lived, how that ultimate experience should be approached, is totally different. Their paths are different, their goal may be the same -- but the goal will be known only when you have arrived, not before that. Before the goal you will have to follow the path.
MAHATMA GANDHI WAS TRYING somehow to prove that the Mohammedan and the Hindu and the Jaina are all saying the same thing. It was a forgery, because he was choosing from the Koran only sentences which are harmonious with the Gita, and not choosing sentences which are disharmonious with the Gita. The Gita is his criterion. He calls the Gita his mother, but he does not call the Koran his father. The Gita is his mother; he remains a Hindu, basically a Hindu. And according to the Gita he goes on finding... wherever anything can be found which is similar, he chooses it, picks it up; but anything that is not similar to the Gita, he simply drops it, he forgets all about it.

This is not a right approach. And still he could not convince anybody. In fact, the very effort was futile, an exercise in futility -- he could not convince the Mohammedans, he could not convince the Hindus. Mohammedans remained Unconvinced; they continued demanding a separate country, and they succeeded in having a separate country. And he could not convince the Hindus -- in fact, one Hindu murdered him, one fanatic Hindu murdered him. He could not convince anybody.

And I cannot believe that he convinced himself either. His whole life he was singing in his ashram: "ALLAH-ISHWAR TERI nam -- Allah and Ishwar, both are thy names!" But when he was shot dead, Allah didn't come to his heart. When the bullet passed into his heart, he cried, "Ram!" not Allah -- "Hey Ram!" That is very decisive. At that moment all philo-sophizing was forgotten, the real Hindu surfaced. He could not remember Allah at that moment, could not remember Buddha, could not remember Mahavira. The person he remembered was Ram -- the Hindu ideal, the Hindu incarnation of God. That shows that he could not even convince himself -- what to say of others?

In this place I am not trying to convince anybody, and still things are happening. I am not trying to bring a synthesis of all religions, because I know it is utterly futile. They ARE different, they are unique. And I respect their uniqueness. In fact, the world is richer because there is a Koran and there is a Gita and there is a Dhammapada. The world is richer because Zarathustra happened, Lao Tzu happened, Buddha happened; the world is richer because there is Nanak and Kabir and Farid. So many different flowers! The world is a beautiful garden.

And the rose is not the lotus, and the lotus is not the rose -- both are flowers, both have bloomed, that is true. Buddha has bloomed and Jesus has bloomed -- both are flowers -- but a rose is a rose and a lotus is a lotus. And it is good that not all are roses, that not all are lotuses.

But something very mysterious is happening here, Darius, you can see: all kinds of people are here, from almost every country, from every religion, and nobody teaches them to be tolerant and nobody teaches them to be respectful of the other's religion. These things are simply not talked about, and still nobody is intolerant. In fact, nobody thinks in terms that the other is other. This is a totally different vision.

My approach is that you have to drop -- not to imbibe tolerance, not to imbibe a certain synthesis, manipulated, man-made -- you have to drop this whole nonsense of the American way of life and the Indian way of life and the Chinese way of life. You have to drop this whole nonsense that "I am a Hindu, Mohammedan, Parsi, Sikh." You are just a human being! Maybe your colour is different -- so what? It is good that there are people of different colours, different flowers. Your hair is different -- good! It makes life more worth living, more interesting. The variety gives richness.

Your idea, Darius, that people can live in harmony even though they have different beliefs is wrong. Those different beliefs are the problem. In fact, to believe is to go wrong: knowing is good, believing is wrong. Enquiring is good, gathering prejudice is wrong. Be a seeker and be an agnostic.

By 'agnostic' is meant: say clearly to others and to yourself that "I don't know -- so how can I cling to any belief? I was born in a Hindu family, so I have been taught the Hindu religion by my parents, but I don't know what is right and what is wrong -- it is just incidental. Had I been brought up by a Christian, I would have believed in the Christian religion in the same way. Or, if I had been born in Soviet Russia then I would have been a communist; then I would not have believed in the trinity of God the Father and God the Son and the Holy Ghost. I would have believed in a totally different trinity: Marx, Engels, Lenin, and the Kremlin would have been my Kaaba, and DAS KAPITAL would have been my Bhagavad Gita."