Preface

We should progress. It is essential. Life is movement. Growth is expansion. The expansion takes place in nature on two levels. If you contemplate the growth of a tree, you will realise that, as its branches spread out, its roots go deep, and spread out underground too. Minus the latter, the growth above, even if it were possible, would wither away, and might become a menace.

No one would dare sit under a tree without roots. Yet, the whole humanity today lives in such a state! Knowledge has soared high above the clouds to see the other side of the moon! Knowledge has branched out in many directions. Luckily, these branches are laden with fruits.

But, is this tree of knowledge rooted in firm soil? Are we safe in its shade? Or, are we going to be crushed by the weight of the tree we have planted and grown, by the weight of the very fruits we have longed to taste and enjoy!

Where is Knowledge rooted? In Knowledge of Self. Knowledge of "the other" is external growth or expansion. Knowledge of Self is inner growth, in the depth of our being. The two together are the greatest blessing to mankind.

The science that enables us to gain this inner Knowledge of the Self, is Yoga. Many techniques have been evolved to bring this discovery about. Some insist on world-and-life-negation; others extol total world-and-life-acceptance. The former leads to inertia. The latter back to materialism. Not because of their intrinsic lack, but because understanding is lacking in the practitioner.

There is one scripture, however, which describes both the methods, but insists upon understanding. Equipped with this understanding, Man recognises the existence of the world, but is not lost in its glamour, recognizes the need for growth and expansion, but does not neglect the rest.

That scripture is the Gita. That Yoga is called Buddhi Yoga, the yoga of Understanding. As we study this Yoga of Understanding, we shall see that the scripture, though in Sanskrit, is no monopoly of the people of any faith, race, or nationality, but is the nourishment that all men need.

 Introduction to the Bhagavad Gita

Bhagavad Gita means 'Divine Song'. It is like the Gospel, and hence has been styled the "Indian Bible". It is revelation in the sense that Incarnate God taught it to Man. It is in the form of a dialogue between Sri Krishna and Arjuna, a warrior, and was revealed, on a battlefield five thousand years ago, to signify that it is to be applied to the problems that arise in the daily battle, of our life. It is generally accepted as historical.

Its study does not imply conversion of anyone from one faith to another; it expressly discourages such practice. Its study will only confirm us in our own faith.

The Bhagavad Gita is a small scripture of seven hundred couplets. But it is amazing what a wealth of sheer information and inspiration it contains.

Even today, it is the 'guiding hand' of many of India's foremost national leaders, and it has stirred the hearts of many of the world's western philosophers, too. That is because it re-enacts a routine human drama. The situation portrayed in the Gita occurs several times in our own lives. And the Gita tells us how to act in those situations.

Mahatma Gandhi 'lived' the Gita, and demonstrated not only that it can be applied in our daily life, but that such an application will greatly enrich our life. Its teachings are entirely non-sectarian and universal.

Dr. Zimmer, a great Indologist of Europe, believes that the Bhagavad Gita is a synthesis of the Aryan and pre-Aryan thought. According to him, pre-Aryan religious thought is what, in its Brahminised - Aryanised version, is preserved in the two systems of Indian philosophy - Sankhya and Yoga - as also in Jainism.

The Bhagavad Gita is part of a much larger epic, the Mahabharatham, which describes the laws that govern creation - Dharma, and is presented to us in the form of the conflict between good and evil, and the eventual triumph of the good over the evil. There were two rival families - the Pandavas and the Kauravas, who were cousins. The Pandavas were virtuous; the Kauravas were wicked. The Kauravas, by cunning methods, took away the kingdom that rightly belonged to the Pandavas, and subjected them to inhuman hardships. The Pandavas, led always by the eldest brother Dharmaputra, who was virtue itself, were virtuous and noble. They tried to regain their kingdom by peaceful means, but eventually war was declared.

Both Duryodhana, the eldest of the Kaurava brothers, and Arjuna, one of the Pandava brothers, approached Sri Krishna for help in their campaign for support of other rulers.

Sri Krishna was impartial. He said: "Both of you are dear to Me. Therefore, now choose what you want. You can have either Me, or my vast army. But please remember also, I will not take up arms and fight." Duryodhana chose the big army of Sri Krishna. Arjuna gladly accepted Sri Krishna Himself, who became his charioteer.

The Gita was revealed to Arjuna on the first day of the battle. In its dialogue, there are four speakers, Dhritarashtra, Sanjaya, Arjuna, and Krishna. Dhritarashtra was the blind father of the Kauravas, and Sanjaya his minister and charioteer.

Just before the war began, the sage Vyasa, who is traditionally supposed to be the author of the Gita, and was the grandfather of all the brothers, blessed Sanjaya with supernatural vision and hearing. Sanjaya was thus able to know what was going on in the battlefield, and thus it was he who transmitted the Bhagavad Gita.

Dhritarashtra opens the Gita with the question : 'What did the Pandavas and also my people do when they assembled together on the holy plain of Kurukshetra, desirous to fight, O Sanjaya?" The whole narrative of the Gita is Sanjaya's answer to this.

Sri Krishna's teaching has been the Light, guiding the life of thousands of people in every generation of mankind in this world, all these five thousand years since the scripture was born on the battlefield of Kurukshetra.

To quote from tributes from some great men.

Aldous Huxley said: "To a world at war, a world that, because it lacks the intellectual and spiritual prerequisites to peace, can only hope to patch up some kind of armed truce, the Gita stands pointing, clearly and unmistakably, to the only road of escape from the self-imposed necessity of self-destruction."

Schopenhauer said: "In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonical philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita, since whose composition many years of the gods have elapsed, and in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial."

Mahatma Gandhi said: "When doubts haunt me, when disappointments stare me in the face, I turn to the Bhagavad Gita, and find a verse to comfort me. Then I begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming sorrow. Let the Gita be to you a mine of diamonds, as it has been to me. Let the Gita be your constant guide and friend on life's way. Let the Gita light the path and dignify your labour."

Swami Sivananda said: "Gita embodies in itself a solution to the immediately pressing problems of man, and carries a wonder ful message of encouragement, hope, cheer and consolation. It is a direct appeal to divinise the entire nature of man. It gives man a positive promise of salvation and makes him fearless. Therein lies the supreme value of the Gita."

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to The Lord, Sri Krishna, the real author of Buddhi Yoga, and my divine Master, Swami Sivananda, in whom I witnessed its exemplar.

Swami Venkatesananda

 lecture 1

Why are we here tonight ? Quite simple, to find out why we are here. In order to find out why we are here, it would be very good and helpful if we don't come here knowing why we have come. It's a bit complicated. If I come here expecting to find something, and don't find it, I'm frustrated. If I come here expecting to find something, and find it here, I'm distracted - and such is life. On the one hand - distraction, on the other - frustration. You expect something, and it turns out as you expected, you will be distracted. You miss all the fun. If you expect something and do not find it, then you are frustrated. It's a bit tricky. I hope that, if I make fun of myself, or of you, or the world, you will take a good look at what might be behind that fun.

If we expect to find something, and find it, we are distracted. That is our experience in life. Every bachelor wants to get married. When he finds that he can get married, he is distracted, he wants something else. It doesn't satisfy him.

Then there is the other aspect of it. He wants to get married, he falls in love with a wonderful girl, he expects to marry her. He does, so they miss the glory of being Romeo and Juliet. Then a few children arrive, and everything seems to be complete. But then there is this dreadful distraction of trying to live up to the marriage, the dreadful distraction of having to keep the family unit intact. Now that everything is wonderful, everything must go on being wonderful, till the end of wonderfulness.

So, that is what happens to our lives. When we get what we want, we are frustrated. Instead, when we come here, it is much simpler to come with a clean slate, so that you and I, together, can write what we want on this clean board.

A lovely story is told about a Zen Master. A great scholar went to meet this great Zen Master, to learn the truth from him. The Zen Master knew who this wonderful gentleman was, and guessed his intention. The gentleman entered the Zen Master's presence, who, as was the custom, invited him to a cup of tea. He went on pouring and pouring the cup of tea, with the result that the cup was full, the saucer was full, and the gentleman's lap was also full. He asked, "But why do you keep pouring, can't you see the cup is, full?'' And the Zen Master answered, "If as you enter my room, your cup , is already full, what do you expect me to do? Pour some more? It will overflow."

Come with an empty cup, a clean slate, an enquiring mind. That is the right attitude in all study, in all discussion, in all communication, in all dialogue.

The spirit of enquiry is important. Marriages break and come to the rocks, only because people get married. The spirit of courtship comes to an end, and you can rest assured, that once the courtship comes to an end, divorce proceedings have commenced. Whether you go to a divorce court or not, is immaterial. It is in the courtship that all the fun lies. In exactly the same way, in what we are going to do, it is the enquiry that is all important. Is there an answer? Ask yourself, find out, let this be the enquiry. Is there an answer to the question, "Why am I here ?" Find out. Just as courtship keeps the couple in a state of ecstasy, this spirit of enquiry keeps us alert.

There may not be a conclusion to this enquiry. What a conclusion? Conclusion is a full stop. And, because we run into this dead-end of anticipating a conclusion, people begin to ask, "What then?" We assume that there is an end, a conclusion. Again, coming back to love symbolism, love is only a symbolism. This courtship continues, this enquiry continues, what is the end ? The end is something wonderful. I guess you know something wonderful about spiders. I have not seen it, but have only read about it in books. I believe immediately after the mating, the spider eats the male. And that is absolutely true of this quest, the quest of Truth. What is the conclusion ? The conclusion is absorption, it is not annihilation, it is not destruction, it is absorption, it is the two becoming one. A wave is absorbed into the ocean. It is not as though the wave was ever distinct from the ocean. It appeared to be, and now it is absorbed into the ocean. That is the conclusion.

We are anticipating a conclusion, we are anticipating the answer to this question, "What are we?" It is because we have never bothered, not to answer this question, but to ask. This question has never been allowed to arise in our minds. We are in a mess in this world: our life is in a mess, our society is in a mess. Why is our society in a mess? Because each member of that society is in a mess, and contributes his nature to that society. If all of us have only disharmony in our lives, you can't expect the society to enjoy harmony. If all of us suffer from frustration, if all of us exude hatred, how do we expect society to be a heaven?

Basically, the problem is not one of sociology, but philosophy. The moment the word, philosophy, is uttered, someone exclaims, "Ah, now we know: God, World, Man, you understand these three, all your problems are over." Philosophy means "love of wisdom". Love that is wisdom, wisdom that is love.

Not love alone, not wisdom alone. Love that is wisdom, wisdom that is love. We begin to look within, learn to ask ourselves this question, "What am I ?", not even hoping to get an answer, not even expecting to find an answer, not even anticipating that there is an answer. The question arises in my heart. That is all that is important, nothing more, nothing less. Is there an answer? That is exactly what I am trying to find out. If there is no answer, we will know. If there is, we will know.

What am 'I'? Till we learn to ask this question sincerely, shall continue to lead a messy life, jumping from frying pan into fire, and when the fire is too hot, back to the frying pan. And, what do we do ? What are we doing now? We have got together. Someone stands here, someone sits there. I suppose, being in a lecture room, this place where I stand is reserved for the professor. In spiritual communication, we call the teacher a guru - I'm not one. I'm only giving you the nomenclature. What is the difference between professor and guru? A big difference. The teacher's student is called the pupil.

English is a foreign language to me. I learnt it at school; the advantage being, I learned to look at words and not to take them for granted; where perhaps you would, because it's your mother tongue. Pupil. What is this pupil? When anatomy was taught, we were told that we have two pupils. I said, "Good Heavens, each one has two pupils, I may be a stupid fool, and still I have two pupils." But I began to ask why. Why is this called pupil? And the student, in relation to the teacher, is also called a pupil. On the other hand, in spiritual communication, we have the disciple and the guru.

The pupil is one who behaves like the pupil of your eyes. What does a pupil do? When we come into a dark room, it opens wide. When we go into bright sunshine, it closes up. In other words, when the pupil stands before the Light of Truth, he closes his eyes. In darkness, he is quite at home. That is the nature of a pupil. Why does he not receive this great Light of Wisdom? The great master, the great sage, the great man of Self-realisation, can do nothing to a pupil. Why? Because, the moment the pupil comes and stands in front of this Light of Truth, he closes up, whereas the disciple does not. Disciple is only a spelling mistake. It actually is discipline. It is when the pupil disciplines himself, opens himself, is receptive to the Light of Truth that radiates from the master, that he is benefited.

As a matter of fact, the word guru means just that. Each letter of the Sanskrit alphabet, which corresponds to a syllable in English, has a meaning of its own. Gu refers to gloom. The gloom of ignorance, the gloom of absence of Self-knowledge, the gloom of darkness. Ru means remover. Again, I am deliberately choosing a word with phonetic similarity to the original syllable. So that guru means 'the remover of the darkness of ignorance'. Guru is the Light, the Light of Truth.

Do we need a guru? Can we not walk the path of Truth without the guidance of a guru? Yes and no. No, because that Truth which shines in and through you, itself becomes your guru. Without light we cannot see. That Light is the guru. Yet, it may be unnecessary for a microscopic minority. It may be unnecessary for some to find what you and I commonly call a guru, a human personality.

In the case of such a personality it may even be a great risk following that guru. You can't follow a guru! What do you mean, 'following a guru'? A guru is the Light, and since here you are talking of the human personality, he is facing the Light that is the Truth. You know what happens when you follow that man? You are walking in the shadow of his human personality. You can't help it. That's why we stumble and then blame the guru. "Ah, I followed him, I fell down." You didn't follow him; you were walking on his shadow. He showed you the Light. You refused to take advantage of that Light, but followed the man, who cast his shadow behind. You walked in that shadow and got lost. It wasn't his fault - it's nobody's fault.

And yet, without a guru, how do we know? How do we see? There are people who have condemned the idea of a guru outright. They have said, "Don't follow any guru." Means what? "Follow me!" He says, "Don't follow any guru." And if you did just that, what are you doing? You are following him. You are making him the guru.

How is it possible that we can see, without Light. And yet, if we have the Light and refuse to see, again we have the same result. Therefore, here we are not trying to follow one another, but we are trying to sit together. You providing some Light for me, and I'm providing some Light for you. And, by just casting our Light upon one another, we might find the Truth.

I don't know if any of you have experienced this phenomenon; it took my breath away during my pilgrimage in the Himalayas. It was the dark fortnight and we were in the heart of the Himalayas. I looked out of the window. It was cold, very cold. I found the whole landscape beautifully moonlit. I thought, "This is funny, there is no moon today." I jumped out of the window. You know what it was? Fantastic! Indescribably beautiful! We were surrounded by snow-capped mountains and the snow-radiated light, and the peaks were reflecting on one another.

Now, if you will please remember this lovely analogy, you will remember what we are doing here. You are not listening to a discourse; we are talking to each other. If we adopt this method, not only here in this hall, but in all enquiry outside, not expecting to brainwash or to be brainwashed, neither swallowing nor rejecting, merely responding, the two together will produce the Light with which we will be able to find our path. That is the Light that casts no shadow at all. Because you become the Light itself. It is not the Light of some other human personality that you try to follow, but you become the Light. And that is why the great Buddha said, "Be ye Light unto yourself."

Yet the candle cannot light itself. It's full of fire, the entire candle is inflammable material, and yet it cannot light itself. It has to - using the wrong word - borrow the light from someone else. It has to be kindled by somebody else.

And, once this candle is lit, becomes a candle in its own right.

You are a candle; if you refuse to recognise this inner candle, this candle of your own Light, the Light of your self-knowledge, and all the time walk in the shadow of this human personality that you call the guru, naturally you are heading towards a great loss.

We are trying to discuss a scripture. Scriptures have come in for a lot of criticism. Most deservedly. Why? It is very easy to quote; and you know the famous proverb: "the devil quoting scriptures'. In Sanskrit, we have two words: "Deva" and "Asura". Deva is a god. Div means to illumine. The same root has given us the other English words, divine, day, daylight. Deva is a being of Light. Kura is the opposite, one who has no light. If you are a being of Light, you must be able to see the Truth yourself. If you can't see, what will you do? If you ask me about America, about something I don't know, I will only quote what the Time Magazine says. I can't say first hand. I don't know. It is here that we become devils quoting scriptures, not Devas shedding Light.

If I have first hand experience, I won't quote. In India, a few years ago, girls were not allowed on the stage; so, all female parts were played by boys. Now, suppose you are aware that the cast of a particular play had all males. You see what you think is a lovely looking girl, and you think that the manager has introduced one girl into the cast. "Lovely girl" you murmur to yourself. Some lady sitting next to you nudges you and says, "Oh no, it is a man." You take a closer look, and you say, "Ah yes, I see now." Now, you are only guessing. You ask the lady sitting next to you, "How did you know it was not a girl?" "He is my husband." How does she know? She doesn't guess, she doesn't quote somebody, she knows.

Now, this is the beauty of Light. There is no quotation here. There is actual direct perception, experience. And then again, how do we know what can be experienced? From the scriptures. What are they? They are the recorded experiences of those who have gone ahead of us. This girl says, "He is a man." Direct experience. We have no business to doubt it.

Shifting to another sphere; every captain of a ship, or the pilot of an aeroplane, has a chart, a navigation chart. He can't throw the chart away, and say, "Oh, I'll find the way myself. I'll depend upon the inner light". If you want to find the path, and there is that chart available, why don't you make use of it? But, everyone of these things can he used, disused, and misused. Of these three, I don't like only one thing. Disuse.

Very often we misuse the scriptures, and so have invited upon them unmerited criticism. Somewhere there is a word 'chosen' - immediately we want to be the 'chosen' race, the 'chosen' religion, the 'chosen' few. I am not referring particularly to the Hebrew scriptures, or the Muslim scriptures. These expressions are obtained even in Hindu scriptures. "We are the chosen ones." "Unless you were born here, unless you appear like this, unless you follow this, you are damned." "This is the only door through which you can enter." We are told that "God is within you." If, in order to find the God within, I have to follow this "somebody", and walk through this "only" gate, I would be running away from myself.

These are the man-made abuses of the scriptures, that have invited upon them unmerited criticism. The scriptures are not to blame. Man's own abuse is responsible for this criticism. Scriptures are like charts, navigation charts. We can use them, we can find our path with their help. But, if three or four of us have got charts, written in different languages and different markings, we will not know how to interpret them; so, we start quarrelling.

What is the way to discover which one is right ? Make use of them. Find out. There is only one way in which this dispute can be settled. Find out!

Is faith necessary in a scripture? Yes. Otherwise you won't study it. Must we have blind faith in this scripture? No! Then we won't be able to read it. I am using the words literally. We have blind faith. Means what ? What do I see? I see nothing. I don't even see a paper here. It is useless. Again, I must have faith in it, otherwise I would throw it into the dustbin. That is why Lord Buddha said, "Neither this nor that. In the middle is the path."

There is no general rule. From moment to moment, keep yourself alert, and try to discover. That is the most wonderful thing. Should we take this scripture literally? No. Throw it away? No. Keep it, study it. If you have no faith in it at all, you won't study it, or at least be receptive to the truths embedded in the scripture. If you have blind faith, you won't study it, either.

Study it, and apply it. Without faith, without axioms, there is no science.

And this is precisely true of the scriptures that have been handed down to us. Take them. Accept them. Experiment with them, and discover the Truths enshrined in them. It is then that you, in your own life, in your own consciousness, will be able to become a scripture. Your life will be a scripture. There will be no need for you to quote. You will be that scripture. That is the meaning of studying a scripture, that is the meaning of resorting to a guru. We must resort to a guru, not hunt one. If you start hunting me, I will run. That is not the right attitude.

Here we shall assemble together, night after night, trying to see if some light can be shed on, not so much our life, not so much our problems, but on "being". What are we ?

For, it is certain, that the moment I know what I am, I will at least cease to be a fool. We shall cease to be fools only the moment we discover that there is "something", "I am".

What am I? What are we? This is the question that haunts us, this is the question that is most important to us in our life, for life flows from this "I Am,". Becoming is nothing but consecutive displacement of being. Somebody asked me, "Swami, you go from place to place; don't you get sick, don't you get tired ?" I said, "I don't go from place to place." Why? The car goes from place to place, the plane goes from place to place. What difference does it make to me? This attitude produces a tremendous inner transformation. We are not moving. We are not doing anything. We are. And this being shifts, or something else shifts, I don't know. We still don't know if the sun moves around the earth or the earth moves around the sun. Absurd discussion. In infinite space, what moves around what? The answer depends upon the terms of reference. If you are standing on the sun, the earth moves around the sun; if you are standing on the earth, the sun moves around the earth.

So that, here, we 'are'. The movement is illusory, exactly the same way as the film. In a cinema what moves? The screen is stationary, you are stationary, the projection room is stationary, the projector itself is stationary, and even the reels have been fixed and screwed, except that they keep revolving. That is not the movement that you see on the screen. And if you know the technicalities of it, each frame has got a distinct picture. That picture does not move. What is moving? Scientific explanations can come later; but, let us learn to wonder. How is it that by merely putting a series of things one after the other, and shifting their position, there is an illusion of movement on the screen. Each frame has only got a certain state of being. There is no motion inside the film. This state of being, followed by that state of being, creates an illusion of motion. An illusion of action, an illusion of activity, an illusion of life. So that again, to come back to our original theme, when we know what we are, when this question arises in our heart, then our life will be fruitful, glorious, and divine.

 lecture 2

The scripture we are discussing, is called the Bhagavad Gita, the Song of God, or the Word of God. It has a story behind it. All scriptures have a Genesis, a story behind them. That is the way in which the ancients introduced a philosophical truth. Often these scriptures, especially the Genesis, involved human relations, human problems, human reactions to those human problems. I don't know how far this is valid, but they are supposed to guide us in the resolution of our own problems. How far they can claim to do so is upto you and me to believe or not to believe. They contain portraits of human life - allegorically, exoterically, esoterically, literally, as you wish to take these things. There is no hard and fast rule. Nor need we be dogmatic here. Why are these wonderful scriptures embedded in human stories? For the simple reason that we all like stories. All of us like stories, and who doesn't? Perhaps I should illustrate with an anecdote.

I am fond of making light of serious topics, because I feel, to be light-hearted itself, is the best philosophical approach to the truth. One who is good, can also be happy and blissful. Goodness does not mean having a long face. I like to make people laugh and joke, and, at first, some people didn't like it. One day, a young lady came to me and very nicely said, "You know Swami, from an Indian Swami or Holy man we expect the most serious presentation of these holy truths, not a flippant way of dealing with them. The sublime must be kept sublime, and must not be brought down to the ridiculous." I said, "Mother, I don't know if I can be serious. Do you insist upon it ? If I present a high philosophical discussion to people who are totally raw to this type of pursuit, young boys and girls, it may be a bit difficult to hold their attention. They will go to sleep." She said, "I understand your objection. But I am going to get you serious seekers of the highest calibre. Now please give a serious talk on the Upanishads." So, a sort of inner circle meeting was organised, and Swami was asked to give a very serious talk on the philosophy of the Upanishads. Immediately it started, this girl could hardly keep her eyes open for five minutes, and down came the head and she had a very good sleep for a whole hour. As soon as I stopped, her eyes opened and she also woke. I thought, now I understand why you want serious talks on exalted topics! you want to sleep! And I also understand another thing: why it is said that philosophy promotes peace. Immediately it puts you to sleep, and I am almost sure that people who sleep can't fight.

Now, that is a peculiar thing. We do want to elevate our consciousness to a sublime height; yet, there is undoubtedly a resistance within. This resistance manifests itself in a thousand ways. In Indian philosophy, it is called Mala - impurity. But we need not be ashamed of ourselves. We all have impurity in our own hearts. How did it get there? We do not know. This impurity manifests itself, not only in the waywardness of the mind in our day to day living, but also as positive obstacles to philosophical enquiry. If you hang a picture of, let us say Jesus Christ, on one side of a room, and a nude painting on the other side, which do you think will attract everyone's attention first? They will turn back again on second thoughts, and even these second thoughts may be prompted by "what will he think" This is mala, which haunts our lives. It does not do to ignore this. It is wiser to recognise it, and then deal with it. And the only way in which philosophical truths can be profitably conveyed from one person to another, is by appealing at the same time to both the intellect and the emotions. If you keep the emotional level, like the cinema, then the purpose is defeated. If you appeal too much to the emotions, then the philosophical quest disappears. And, if you appeal too much to the Intellect, then the whole thing goes to sleep, and there is resistance, there is a blockage.

The ancients had a wonderful method of combining the two. I am particularly conscious of this in most of our Indian scriptures, where you have a high emotional content, a high emotional appeal, and suddenly you have a mind-shocking spiritual truth, and you will say, "Ah um, is that so?" You listen to the story like the T.V. commercials. You do not know when the commercial is going to end and the news is going to start; so, you keep looking. It is just sandwiched between them in the most delightful way. These commercials must have learnt from the oriental scriptures, the best way to capture the imagination, and to push in the commercials.

All stories which have a spiritual purpose, a moral embedded them, contain the basic element of drama. Those who have studied drama will appreciate that every drama requires a hero or a heroine, and a villain. Without a villain there is no drama. We may go home and perhaps run down the villain and praise the hero, without grasping this wonderful truth. We remember both of them. Perhaps we remember the villain a little more, while paying lip service to the hero. We can't ignore or forget the villain. He is as important to the play as the hero.

In other words - Good and Evil. This is how the world has been created, sustained, and maintained. There is nothing absolute in creation. No absolute good; no substance without a shadow can exist in creation. For this creation is a-relative affair.

There is a state of being where non-being does not exist. There is a notion of reality where unreality does not exist. How do you know? By guessing, on the testimony of those who have experienced such a state, and on the basis of analogy. What is the analogy? A simple thing. The world exists and the mind exists. So long as the world exists and the mind exists, thought also exists. We are bound to think. Whereas it is very comfortable to lie down, doing nothing physically, it is very uncomfortable not to think. One would expect that just as physical laziness is extremely comfortable, mental laziness is also comfortable. It is not. Lie down and daydream, think of a million things. Imagine yourselves as kings and queens of great lands, if not on this earth, somewhere else, with all your desires fulfilled. You can comfortably go on day-dreaming. Stop thinking, and you will get tired, bored, fatigued. Stop thinking for two minutes. I do not know if it is true, but they say that twenty seconds is the maximum period a normal person can live without thinking. Yet, during sleep, we exist without thinking. The mind is not obsessed by thoughts. I am not referring to nightmare here. That is a dream state. During good deep sleep state, which can prevail even, according to learned scientific psychologists, up to about forty minutes to one hour, we are completely without thoughts. Yet there is an existence, a thoughtless existence. And, combining the two, great saints, yogis and philosophers infer - it is only an inference, an axiom, which has to be proved in our own life - that there is a state in which there can be consciousness minus the diversity, and existence minus the ignorance of sleep. They have experienced it. They give it to us. That state is called bhuma.

yo vai bhuma tat sukham, na alpe sukham asti

Great Yogis have declared 'that Supreme Infinite alone is Bliss.' What you have here is alpam, the finite pleasures which will only lead to displeasure, misery, unhappiness.

ye hi samsparshajaa bhogaa duhkha yonaya eva te aadyantavantah kaunteya na teshu ramate budhah (Gita V-22)

The enjoyments that are born of contacts are only generators of pain, for they have, a beginning and an end, O Arjuna; the wise do not rejoice in them.

Here, whatever pleasure you have is bounded on one side with a beginning and on the other with an end. Everything that has a beginning must have an end. Think of something which has an end and does not have a beginning! Think of something which has a beginning but does not have an end! You can't. It is illogical. But, is everything logical? May not be. So, here is an axiom, take it, test it in your own life, and find whether it is true or false.

These worldly pleasures have a beginning and an end. When the thing begins, you are elated, distracted, and when a thing ends you are frustrated. This is the song of our life. Take, for instance, a wonderful couple in Australia, with an only son. And this boy is in Vietnam. This couple spend sleepless nights when they hear that this boy is coming-home-on leave. What is that? Do you call it happiness or unhappiness ? Excitement? "My son is coming home." "Oh, I hope my son's plane does not crash - all the planes in the world can crash, but not that plane which carries my son back to Perth. It can even crash after it leaves Perth airport, but not till then." Well, by God's grace, the son has landed safe and sound all of one piece, and you go and hug him. "Ah, how lovely to have you back here. How many days will you be here? When are you going back?" So, the anxiety has started. There is an undercurrent of anxiety, a loss of the pleasure that you are having, so that in effect we do not know what it is to be happy.

Somewhere we have lost the key to happiness. Why? Because our happiness depends on something. Our happiness depends upon a contact with something else. So long as my happiness is in your hands, I cannot be happy - impossible. Quite apart from the discussion of the Bhagavad Gita, I have a very simple secret to share with you. Never let anybody know what can make you happy, or what can make you unhappy. If you do, your happiness is finished. You have told somebody how to tempt you, and how to threaten you. What makes you happy, nobody should know. If I know what makes you happy, then I will tempt you. Every time I want you to be my slave, I will tempt you. If I know what will make you unhappy, I will threaten you. Every time I want you to be my slave, I will threaten you. You will live in constant dread. Fear, fear, fear, and this fear will not leave you. No peace of mind, no rest, nothing. The ultimate answer is to ensure that your happiness is in your own hands, the switch to your happiness is in your own hands. If you hand it over to some other person, some other thing in life, your happiness is already gone. That is what Krishna reminds us. ye hi samsparshajaa bhogaa duhkha yonaya eva te - He said that these contact-born pleasures, these pleasures born of contact with some other object in this world, are not miseries. Perhaps that may sound illogical, but they are the wombs of misery. You cannot say that your son returning from Vietnam is an event which can be labelled unhappiness; no, there is joy, happiness. That happiness is the womb, is the mother of the unhappiness that is coming very soon - the parting. Meeting seems to be wonderful, enjoyable, delightful, pleasurable. But please remember that the parting comes after the meeting, and it has to come. In this world, meeting and parting are inevitable, birth and death are inevitable, night and day are inevitable. These things follow one another. So, if you enjoy the one, you are definitely going to be miserable at the other. So that, the ultimate thing is to enjoy the infinite, the Absolute.

Till we find the Absolute, what shall we do? That is the question. Till the time comes when we discover the Absolute and become one with the Absolute ... like the spider's partner ... what shall we do? Be subject to this conflict of good and evil - that is the story of all stories. That is the basis of all stories, which have in them a scripture embedded. Whether you call it the Bible, Koran, a Hindu scripture, Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology. Examine all these stories, and you will find that fundamentally they all have the same strain - the hero, the villain, and their conflict. In India, we have a few such basic stories. I will give you a bird's eye view of the scripture of which the Bhagavad Gita forms part.

But first, let me tell you: there is another one, Ramayana. It more ancient than the story of which the Bhagavad Gita forms part. It is a beautiful and interesting story. In that book, Rama was God - the hero - and the villain was called Ravana. Strangely enough, this word Rama seems to have denoted something divine, something that pertained to the solar dynasty. In quite a number ancient myths and legends, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, there is always a Ra somewhere. In Egyptian mytholog, Ra actually meant the sun, and strangely enough, in the Indian Ramayana, this Rama was supposed to be a descendant of the sun. Rama was divine, and Ravana was something totally undivine. Rama would not hurt a fly, and Ravana was terribly cruel - he would torture even a God. Rama lived, let us say in North India, and Ravana lived thousands of miles away. This villain was no kin, was not related in any way to the hero.

Perhaps 2000 years later, the same drama of the conflict of good and evil was re-enacted on the same soil of India, and this time the good people, no longer an individual but a corporate goodness, were called Pandavas - five of them. I want you to be alert to this story, because it contains some subtle lessons for us. The villain was not an individual, but corporate villainy, the Kauravas. And how many were they? One hundred. I am only drawing lessons from these. The first lesson is that this is bound to be the proportion in the world. Do not expect all the people to be angels. If for every hundred wicked people we have in the world, we have five tolerably good people, then it's a golden age.

Now the conflict starts. Who are they? Not like Rama and Ravana. One in India, and one in another country. No. Here they are cousins. The conflict now draws closer.

Stepping aside from this story. Today, what is the position. Each one of us is half a devil, and half a divine being. It is no longer a struggle between one person who is good, or a few people who are good, and other people who are wicked, but the struggle has entered into our own heart. Within our own heart, there are the forces of light. Within our own heart, there are the forces of darkness. First, they were strangers; then they were cousins. Now they, the forces of good - and evil, are part of our being.

The story continues. Right from their birth, these wicked people had wanted to kill and crush and exploit the good ones. This is the nature of the villain. He is aggressive, he is intolerant, and his only ambition is that the neighbour's motor car must also form part of his garage. "I have two, but never mind. I'll have three. Why not ?" There is no question of justice. There is no question of distribution of the spoils. No. "Why should I not have all the wealth in the world? Why not?" That is the question that every fool asks himself. "Why should I not own everything" That is every fool's ambition, every villain's ambition.

The struggle goes on between the two - the good and the wicked. As is said, God is always on the side of the righteous. For the simple reason that you can't vanquish a man who wants nothing. It's an extremely difficult thing. If I have no desire, if I have no ambition, you do not know how to lead me into frustration. You can't. It is only when I have ambition, when I have a desire, and if you know that desire, by refusing me fulfilment of that ambition, of that desire, you can lead me to misery, to unhappiness. If I accept whatever is given, what can you do? You can only fulfil my ambition. That is the great meaning behind the ancient proverb, "A contented mind is a continuous feast." You can do nothing with this man. He is always happy, because he wants nothing. Whatever is given, even if it is a blow, he receives it with joy. You cannot make him unhappy.

vihaaya kaamaanyah sarvaanpumaamshcharati nihsprihah

nirmamo nirahamkaarah sa shaantimadhigachchati (Gita II-71)

That man attains peace who, abandoning all desires, moves about without longing, without the sense of mine and without egoism.

Says Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. This Yoga was illustrated by these good people in their own lives. "Free from all desires, craving for nothing. This wonderful man of God lives in happiness and peace." And even if you don't believe in a super-human ultra-phenomenal thing called God, this is the secret. We say, God helps, God comes to the rescue of good ones. It is not as though someone comes from the sky to save the good man from being crushed. The good man is uncrushable, that is the secret!

When you don't want to argue, you say, "You are right." There is no argument. There is no quarrel. That is a good man's nature. That is a good man's trick. Try this, and you will find that your life is full of happiness. Somebody wants to come and fight with you, "Oh, you said such and such. You are wrong." Reply, "Perfectly. You are right." This one sentence, "You are right", acts as the best of all needles to prick any balloon that floats near you. "You are right." It's obvious. If he didn't feel that he was right, he wouldn't come and tell you that. Even if he is a fool, or I think he is a fool, let him discover; I don't have to tell him.

Suppose he comes and says, "Swami, you are a fool." What would be my reaction? I would say, "You are right." Perhaps a friend is offended. "How can you say that? Are you a fool then?" I may or may not be a fool. That's' a different story. He thinks I am a fool. That statement is a hundred per cent right. Now, if you come and ask me, "Are you a fool ?", I will ask you back, "What do you think?" If you think I am not, well you think I am not. What am I ? I am, I am. Completely unaffected by your thought that I am a good man, and his thought that I am a fool ... I am what I am.

"Resist not evil," said Jesus Christ. Here again, even the devil can quote scriptures. I shall give you an example of this.

A young girl is walking along the kerb, a thief grabs her handbag, you look at him, he shows you his muscles, and you say, "Ah, Jesus Christ said, Resist not evil," and go your way. That is not right. If someone took all your clothes and hit you with your own shoes, and he was weaker than you, and you knew you could hurt him, and then you said, "Resist not evil", then you are a follower of Jesus Christ, No doubt. But where something is happening, where you can help, and you run away, you are a coward, not a saint. This is an extremely difficult spiritual truth to apply blindly to our lives.

Let's remember this: the key words, "You are right', will promote peace and harmony in our lives. "You are right." I am what I am, unaffected by the opinions of other people. Just because somebody says, "You are a fool", I am not going to be a fool. Just because some one says, "You are a very wise man", I am not going to be a wise man. My wisdom or foolishness does not depend on other people's opinions.

Now, let's get back to the story. This is the nature of the good man. He does not resist evil when it concerns his own personal property. "Resist not evil", has its qualifications. Resist not the evil that is directed against you. And even that has another qualification, which we shall discuss presently. The conflict goes on, and these good people prove to be invincible. Eventually they are cheated, and then banished. The story is very colourful. These wicked people say, while banishing the good people, "All right, you stay away from the kingdom for twelve or thirteen years, and when you come back, we will give you your half of the kingdom."

Most of you know politics. It's an extremely difficult thing to renounce power. Once you have tried it, the chair seems so comforttable. When you are first elected to a position of power, not only in governmental organisations, but even in little societies, social structures or groups, a subtle change takes place in you. First, a few of you may think the Swami is a nice man. "We'll form a group, an organisation, and you will be our leader. You are such a wonderful man." Maybe I was a wonderful man. I don't know. After a few years of occupying that position, I suddenly became a wonderful fool. I begin to believe that her opinion was true. This is the greatest danger. If her opinion was true, what about his opinion? Somebody said I was a fool, somebody said I was a wise man. And somehow, the majority approves her; so, I am in the chair. I begin to feel, "I am a wonderful man." That is the surest sign of a fool. But then it is too late. I am not going to renounce power. That is one of the reasons why God invented, forgive me for saying so, death. No fool can occupy a chair forever. At least death will get him out of the chair. It is a most wonderful thing, if you think about it. Otherwise, the world would be ruled by fools forever. Thanks to death, it doesn't happen. Such is the temptation of power.

When these good people came back after their exile, they had fulfilled their part of the contract, they said, "Look, give us our share of the kingdom." The wicked ones said, 'What do you mean? We won't give you. Take it by force if you like!"

Now this is an extremely subtle truth, an extremely difficult question to decide. Should that evil be tolerated or not? Where does love meet justice? Should love overlap, cover, and cancel justice? Should justice again make a travesty of love? Is there a state of being, is there a mode of action, which combines love and justice? This is something which has puzzled every one. Here we have a situation in which these good people had fulfilled their part of the contract by going into exile, have come back to claim their birthright, and these wicked ones say, "Go. We won't give it." Is this to be taken as a personal effrontery? In which case you are to keep quiet. No. And here, we are reminded of Mahatma Gandhi, who said, "I don't hate the British, they are my friends. I love them. And because I love them, I want to save them from the injustice that they are showing towards the people of India." It's an extremely subtle and complicated way of thinking.

That is what the young man, who sees the young girl walking along the kerb, molested by a villain, will feel, "I am not going to punish him, no, but I love him, not his actions." That is what is meant by "Love the sinner, but not the sin." I love him, the deity in him, the being behind the mask. But this evil which covers that being must be eradicated, because of my love for this man. It is only when we are able to distinguish thus between love and hatred within ourselves that we will understand right action.

Puzzled by this situation, these good people go to Krishna, God-incarnate. "What shall we do?" And Krishna says, "I'll make one last effort to resolve this peacefully." He himself goes as an emissary to work for peace. These wicked people refuse. Though Krishna acted as the mediator, when he found that it was useless, that these strong wicked people who were in power were reluctant to abandon their power, he said, "Now is the time for war."

So that again, "resist not evil", so long as it is only directed against you. But if it involves higher issues than mere personal effrontery, it may become your duty to resist evil. This resistance to evil in those days, not only in India, but all over the world, was not considered the duty of every citizen. I was born a Brahmin. I am not fond of shooting, it would be very difficult for me. Supposing I was recruited to the army, and I betrayed cowardice on the battle front, it would be the loss of your victory! So that, in those days all over the world, this resistance to evil was confined to people of an aggressive temperament. In India they were called the Kshatriyas. The Brahmins were those people who were religious or contemplative by temperament. They could not possibly exchange their places, it would have been disaster. These people whose story we are discussing here, were all Kshatriyas, fighters, people of aggressive temperament. For a man, let us say a policeman, whose duty it is to maintain law and order, if he betrayed weakness, and says, "resist not evil", he will promote chaos in society. So that, here again, we have to discriminate. If someone comes to hit me, or if I see some violence going on around me, my duty first is to go and report the matter to the police, and make them intervene, and therefore bring law and order. But it so happened that the parties involved were themselves the warriors, the princes. Krishna tells them to declare war.

The campaign started. One member of this party, one member of that party, went round canvassing support. There were many who joined them, and eventually both of them went to Krishna, incarnate Godhead, as we believe he was. It is said that Krishna was having his afternoon nap, when both these people entered accidentally at the same time. Krishna woke up, looked at them, and said, "I am impartial, both of you are my friends."

If you read between the lines, you will derive a wonderful spiritual lesson. Whether we call ourselves wicked or good, we are all the same from the point of view of God. God doesn't discriminate between the good and the evil, between the good man and the bad man. If He thought I was too wicked to live, He could snuff life out of me in half a second. God's blessings are shared by everybody, whether we label them good or wicked.

So he said, "I am impartial. You choose. I place myself on one side, and I won't fight, and I place my army on the other scale." The wicked people want quantity. That's another sign of wickedness. If you love quantity in preference to quality, you know you are on that side. That wicked man, that Kaurava, thought, "What am I going to do with Krishna? We'll have the army." Arjuna said, "'Good. Thanks very much. I'll have you, Krishna, on my side." Exactly what the Scripture said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you."

The first thing. God must be on our side. Truth must be on our side. Once we ensure that, everything else will come, one by one.

And the war started.

 lecture 3

It may be simple arithmetic, it may be merely playing with words. Somehow I have the feeling that there is no essential and fundamental difference between the word "good" and the word "God". If you look at the two words, you will discover the similarity between them. What is the difference, arithmetically? "O". So, there is no difference. The difference is zero.

This again seems to be an inherent factor in creation. What is evil? We don't know. We only know that it comes into being, or it becomes. All becoming is evil. "Being" is good, "Being" is the truth. Becoming becomes falsehood, becomes untruth, becomes evil. Therefore, evil is not something which drops from the lap of Satan.

I once read a criticism of Indian philosophical thought or theological thought, by a non-Hindu. He says, "The Indian Philosophers say everything is pervaded by God. If that is so, how can they explain the existence of evil in this world? Do they accept even evil as something that is pervaded by God?" We don't know, I am afraid there is no answer to that question. A young Indian girl in Mauritius was very distressed when she read this, and she came running to me, saying, "What to do?" I said, "I have no answer." If someone who believes in the holy Bible advances this criticism, I would very much love him to explain to me another mystery which the Bible contains, "God created the world, and he saw it was good." Lovely. He must have a different vision from you and me who don't feel that the world is so good. Well, God saw it was good and I accept it. He created Adam. Very good. He created Eve. Also good. Perhaps better, I don't know; depends on what sort of Eve she was. Then comes the serpent. Who created that? Obviously God. Everything was created by him. "Why did he create the serpent?" You will have to ask God, not me. The serpent seems to have a will of its own. Distinct and different from God's will, hostile to God's will, antagonistic to God's will. So, whereas God commanded Adam and Eve not to do something, the serpent comes and tempts them to do that very thing, to defy God's will, go against God's will. It is not as though Adam and Eve had forgotten what God told them, but the temptation was more powerful. Who created this evil, and who conferred upon it greater strength than God's own? Any theologian will tell you it's a divine mystery. And it is good to remember that evil, or the misunderstanding of it, is a divine mystery we can't explain. We can concoct a million theories, but it will still be beyond us. Therefore, the Indian philosopher covers the whole thing with a thick blanket, and that is called Maya.

daivi hyeshaa gunamayi mama maayaa duratvayaa maameva ye prapadyante maayaametaam taranti te (Gita VII-14)

Verily, this divine illusion of Mine, made up of the (three) qualities (of Nature) is difficult to cross over; those who take refuge in Me alone, cross over this illusion.

It is a divine power. We don't know what it is. I have a rather simple way of looking at it. It is the other side of God. Everything that is conceivable has two sides. Take the thinnest tissue you can get hold of, it still has two sides. Divide that tissue into two, you get four sides. Everything conceivable has two sides. All your concept of truth, all your concept of reality, all your concept of even God, presupposes the opposite. Thesis presupposes antithesis. Hence, the ultimate truth is regarded as transcendental.

uttamah purushashtvanyah paramaatmetyudaahritah yo lokatrayamaavishya bibhartyavyaya ishvarah (Gita XV-17)

But distinct is the supreme Purusha, called the highest Self, the indestructible Lord, Who, pervading the three worlds, sustains them.

That supreme being is something different. Don't ask anyone to explain what that supreme being is. As soon as you say that supreme being is reality, your mind is unconsciously manufacturing un-reality. I opposite. If you say God is light, you are immediately saying He is not un-light, darkness. If you say that God is truth, He is not non-truth. Absurd! The moment a thought is born, you are manufacturing a duality - "pairs of opposites", as they are called. It's impossible to get out of it.

There was a very great saint in India, called Ashtavakra. He was a fantastic person. I will tell you a story connected with him; then we will get back to our discussion of good and evil. There was a king called Janaka, who seems to have been a legendary personality. A wonderful warrior, a great statesman, and the wisest man. He was stricken by a disease once. Now from here on, it is hypothesis. We can't question the hypothesis. He had a peculiar disease, which made him sleep for twelve hours a day; 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. he slept, every day, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. he was awake.

Now, part two of the disease was that the moment his head touched the pillow he started dreaming, and the dream continued till he woke up.

Factor number three, every night he dreamed the same dream. 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. he had the same dream every night.

Hypothesis number four, every night he dreamed he was a beggar going about with his begging bowl, to the houses of other people. Somewhere he was kicked, somewhere he was given food,and somewhere he was scolded. As soon as he woke up, he realised he was the king emperor. This continued for some time, so that he didn't know what the truth was. One day at 6 a.m., he opened his eyes, and he saw lovely servant maids, one holding a dish of scented water, another with a fan, and he asked, "Who are you?" They looked at him in astonishment.

They told the ministers that something had happened to the king. "He doesn't behave normally." The council of ministers assembled, and sent the prime minister to find out what the trouble was. As soon as the prime minister came, he said, "Your Majesty".

"What do you mean, "Your Majesty. Why do you call a beggar Your Majesty? What is all this? Who brought me here? Where is my begging bowl?" The prime minister didn't know what to do; but eventually he realised the trouble. This king had been dreaming that he was a beggar. He tried to convince him, "No sir, you are not a beggar, you are the king emperor."

"Well, it does seem to be right, the throne and the Court and so on." Then of everyone Janaka asked this question, "Is this true, is that true?" For twelve hours, I am a beggar, for twelve I am a king. Which is the truth?" Obviously, nobody could answer his question. And up came a queer looking person called Ashtavakra. History says that he was one of the greatest sages alive at that time. He entered the palace, came into the king's court, and the king asked him the same question. "Which is the truth? Is this the truth, is that the truth?" This man, this great sage, had the courage born of his own conviction, to say, "Neither. That is one kind of dream, and this is another kind of dream. Wake up from this dream, and realise that what you are seeking is beyond these." They just stared at one another, and Janaka became an enlightened person.

Beyond this, beyond that.

That is perhaps what Buddha also hinted at, when he said, "Truth is not this, truth is not that." In the middle. You know what the most exasperating thing about this middle path is? You can't see it.

My barber taught me this lesson. Unlike you, we shave our heads every month. This barber in Rishikesh is a fantastic man. We could sit there, keep doing our reading or typing or whatever it was, he would come, apply some water and soap, and using a razor, shave us completely bald, without disturbing us. He was an expert. He used to give me my shave every month. One day, as he was doing this, I was doing my work, and l felt that it was not the usual smooth shave. He stopped working, and asked me, "Swamiji, does it hurt you?" It did, but very little.

I turned to him, and asked him, "How do you know?" I wanted to find out if I had winced or grimaced.

He said. "No. I didn't realise from your face that it hurt you, I saw something. Look!"

He put his razor in front of me. "Can you see the edge?" I said, "Yes, like an extremely fine black line". He said, "Ah, that is why it hurt you. I thought it hurt you."

Then he started sharpening it a little bit more, and said, "Can you see the edge now?"

I said "No". Now it was perfect.

What was the lesson? The razor's edge cannot he seen. You have heard of this middle path being referred to as the razor's edge. The spiritual path, the path to Nirvana, the path to salvation, is a razor's edge. It cannot be seen. It is neither this nor that. Keep eliminating this, keep eliminating that. Not this, not that, that's all you can say. What it is you cannot say. For, the moment you say this is it, you have already defined it. To define the truth is to deny it. To define the truth is to create a problem with untruth.

There was another great master we all adore in India. We call him an incarnation of God. All these great masters are elevated to Godhead in India. If you can't follow them, worship them! A very simple method, isn't it? Buddha, Christ, Krishna, they have their teaching. We are supposed to follow them, we are supposed to assimilate their teaching, and become like them. But that is impossible. So, we put them on a pedestal, worship them, and say, "Ah, I worship Buddha, so I am a Buddhist." You are not a Buddhist. You are a worshipper of Buddha. How do you become a Buddhist? By worshipping a statue of Buddha? How do you become a Christian? By worshipping a statue of Christ? You are a worshipper of Jesus Christ, that's all. You are not a Christian. To be a Christian, you must become Christ. To be a Buddhist, you must become the Buddha. It's a bit difficult. We are clever. We make use of all these people. We kill them first, so that they cannot ask us inconvenient questions, and then we worship them. I wonder what they think of us now.

One such great person in India, was called Dakshinamurti.

There are always people who can quote chapter and verse from a thousand scriptures. They are like a library which speaks. The other library is only a reference library. But this one is able to speak. A computer. All the knowledge of the world is mimeographed, and fed into it. All you have to do is press a switch, ask a question, "Swami, what is this?" These people are called very wise men. Sit in their presence. It becomes an intellectual entertainment. And we love it. Just like watching a football match on the television. I have never understood what pleasure one derives from watching a football match on the television. If you want to play, lovely, you'll develop your health and strength and so on. But we always try to have a substitute. Somebody must play football, and we must sit and watch. There is one advantage there. Whichever side wins or loses, you can still clap! We have developed the habit of having our work done by somebody else. Even learning is done by somebody else. Knowledge is gained by someone else; wisdom is gained by somebody else. Ask anyone here how does this tape recorder work? I don't know. But I know it works. Why should I bother to learn? When it comes to scriptures, when it comes to religion, when it comes to philosophy, it is all there, written down, printed, 50.000 copies sold. You are one of these 50.000 copies. Such is called a man of wisdom. A man of great learning. And the more confusing the man becomes, the higher the pedestal he gets. You know why? You can't argue with him. You don't know what he's talking about!

I once had a sample of this. I went to visit a friend in India. The day before I got there, a very great learned Swami had been to that place, and had delivered a thrilling lecture. My friend had attended that meeting, "You know, Swami So-and-So was here yesterday. Fantastic intellect. Brilliant man. It was an inspiring, thrilling, soul-elevating lecture". I said, "I am sorry I missed it. Can you give me something that he said?" "Oh, I couldn't understand a word. The lecture was fantastic. I couldn't understand a word that he said." This is what we want. And these men are called men of great learning, great wisdom! I don't know why.

Four of them were getting more and more confused. Naturally! When you stuff into this poor little head, all sorts of information which has no relation to your life, you'll get more and more confused. In search of enlightenment, they were wandering in the forest. They saw a young man sitting there. Looking at him, they suddenly felt they wanted to go and ask him to help them. His presence was so terrific that they couldn't talk. They went near him, bowed to him, and their looks asked a question. He also looked at them in silence, and gestured with one hand.

This is beautifully portrayed in a Sanskrit verse, which means "Here is the picture. Under a tree is seated a young man, radiant with wisdom and enlightenment. At his feet are seated four old men. The Guru instructs in silence, and the disciples are enlightened."

Vasishtha was instructing Rama on the highest truth. He said, "Look. The whole visible universe is a mere appearance." He doesn't say it is unreal. Because the moment you say unreal, you are going to ask some other question. It is an appearance. Its reality is not known.

Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita,

adhashchordhvam prasritaastasya shaakhaah gunapravriddhaa vishayapravaalaah

adhashcha mulaanyanusantataani karmaanubandhini manushyaloke

na rupamasyeha tathopalabhyatenaanto na chaadir na cha sampratishthaa

ashvatthamenam suvirudhamula masangashastrena dridhena chitvaa (Gita XV-2,3)

Below and above spread its branches, nourished by the gunas; sense-objects are its buds; and below in the world of men stretch forth the roots originating action.

Its form is not perceived here as such, neither its end nor its origin, nor its foundation nor resting place; having cut asunder this firmly rooted peepul tree with the strong axe of non-attachment.

This universe appears to be something. You and I are unable to see its real nature. This was what Vasishtha said, too. We don't know how many thousands of years ago he lived. We don't know how many thousands of years ago Krishna existed, or how many thousands of years ago the Bhagavad Gita was born. But, yet, this truth is hidden in the Bhagavad Gita.

"Na rupamasyeha tathopalabhyate." The world that you see doesn't possess the form that you ascribe to it. A fantastic thought. A shocking thought. Maybe it's the truth. It doesn't say what the form is; no, you find out. But this much is clear: that what we see is not reality.

I had a shocking experience last year, at Kuala Lumpur, in Malaysia, when I was taken to the Rubber Research Institute. I went into one room. There was a huge big photograph there. I looked at it, and said that it looked like an aerial photograph of the coast line of Israel. The girl who took me around said, "No. You know what it is? A portrait of a single particle of rubber." One pinpoint of rubber! How did that pinpoint become this? An electron microscope did it. When we look at that pinpoint - one molecule of rubber - and photograph it, it becomes this. I looked at her, and said, "You are very charming, very beautiful. Now, supposing, instead of these eyes, I had electron microscopes, what would you appear to be?" Dreadful. Frightful. Now, which is reality? Is this reality, or is that reality? We don't know.

The reality is never seen, can never be seen. That which cannot be seen by your eyes, that which cannot be experienced by your senses, that which cannot be conceived by your mind, that is reality. This great truth was being explained by Vasishtha. He used a very homely illustration, and pointed to the sky, "What do you see there?" "A blue dome." "Does that blue dome exist?" "No. It is empty space." "Do you see empty space?" "No, I see something blue." Now, it is distinctly, definitely a curved something, a dome like structure. Don't bluff yourself. Look at the sky tomorrow morning. What do you see? Definitely you will see a dome. Round. Curved. The scientists have all sorts of theories. At one time they said the earth was flat. At another time they said the earth was round. Now they say it looks like a fresh laid egg. We don't know what they will say next year. We are not worried about these theories. Let us ask ourselves, what do 'I' see up there. A dome. Blue dome. Looks like beautiful glass. Then our rational intelligence tells us that it is not so, it is something else.

That is precisely what happens in front of me now. I see this. It is not what it seems to be. We have never said, as has been misunderstood and misinterpreted especially by Western scholars, that the world is unreal. We have never said that. That would reduce Indian philosophers and thinkers to fools. No. What you see is not as it is. The student asked Vasishtha, "If everything is a vast dream, if everything that happens here is a vast dream, and if you are not what you appear to be, and I am not what I appear to be, then," he said, "why do you sit and talk to me? Why does this duality exist? Why do you recognsie this duality of you and I?" And Vasishtha, again, explains this very beautifully, in an extremely simple and telling way. He says, "Rama, that truth can only be experienced in total silence. It cannot be expressed."

"Expressed" is to press out. The moment you press out, you are already inventing an "in" and an "out. A thing that is all-pervading, omnipresent, cannot be expressed. It cannot be talked about. The moment you open your mouth to speak one truth, you have created duality. Duality is born the moment we make up our minds we wish to talk, we wish to express. Duality is conceived the moment we begin to think. Thus, good and evil are nothing more than two sides of the one thing.

Coming down to earth, in Krishna's own life, said that He was born in order to exterminate the wicked, to support and protect the good.

paritraanaaya saadhunaam vinaashaaya ca dushkritaam dharmasamsthaapanaarthaaya sambhavaami yuge yuge (Gita IV-8)

For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for the establishment of righteousness, I am born in every age.

Says Krishna, "I incarnate myself again and again in order to protect the good people, in order to destroy the wicked, and to uphold righteousness."

What happened, historically speaking, was interesting. It is said that in the days of Krishna, there were quite a number of Hitlers, diabolical people, terrible people, wicked people, who oppressed the good, and therefore oppressed God, I suppose. Krishna just waved His magic wand, so to say, and destroyed all of them. When Krishna was about 125 years old, humanly speaking, He thought, "It is time I left the world, and slipped away, ascended to heaven." He looked around. The world still had people. Who were they? The good people. They were there in tremendous numbers. They were now the possessors of earth. They were now the rulers of earth. They were now the rich people, the people who conducted the affairs of the country. He looked around, and He thought, "What have I done now? I have created another gang of gangsters. Let me finish them also, and then I'll go. Then at least for some time to come, there'll be peace on earth." When will there be peace on earth?

When there are no people on earth who are power-drunk. A famous axiom: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." It is not as though a wicked man drops straight from a black cloud, and a good man drops from a white cloud. Both are born of mothers. It is the good man who in course of time assumes a position of power, and that power corrupts him inside, and he becomes a wicked man. I have seen this happen in all walks of wife, including our life, in monasteries, ashrams, in holy places, in temples, in places which we usually associate with holy men, with sublime, divine life. "The road to hell is paved with many a good intention." A good man with the best of intentions, says that what is wrong with the world, is that 'that' man is in power. Kick him out, and we will have a paradise on earth. Two words are missing there, "for me." "Let these people be butchered, killed, or disposed of, and there will be paradise on earth "for me." You will stay where you are. If you are poor, you will become poorer; if you are suffering, you'll suffer a little more. But, "Kick these rascals out, so that I may occupy their place." That is all that these people ask for. May be I am uncharitable. But if you study the history of the world, you will see that the great political leaders of mankind may have had wonderful idealism when they preached their doctrines, and wanted to capture power.

"These are rogues, kill them."

"All right, but what are you going to do?"

"Aha, I'll take their place. What else do you think I should do? And when I take their place, it is not as though I assume that position, ascend to that position, out of ill-will or malice. No, I may even go there with the best of all intentions. Now from today I will dedicate my life entirely to the service of the downtrodden and the poor etc., etc."

But once he gets into that place the tune changes. "You know, I am so important to the welfare of my people, that I must protect myself. I must have a bodyguard. And in order for this great benefactor of humanity to be saved, it may be necessary for some people to be shot. Not that I want to kill, no, but in order that I may live to serve you, please dispose of him! Kill him!" The same thing, the same thing! There doesn't seem to be any difference.

Now, it may be that I am bluffing myself, but I don't say that all these great men of the world, all these leaders are rogues or rascals. No. With the best of all intentions, they may be becoming duplicates of the previous rascals. This is how the world goes on. Good itself becomes evil. This is what we should bear in mind. So long as it was oppressed, so long as it was on its defensive, so long as it had its eyes turned towards God, good remained good.

When we are unhappy, we turn towards God, and become good. When, perhaps by that very intervention of God, that unhappiness has been taken away, we ourselves become devils. And so the game goes on. Whenever there is a possibility of extinction of the good - which can never happen - whenever the battle approaches a sort of dead-end, when the oppression has reached its limits, then the Divine manifests itself.

I can visualise it happening in every walk of life, history, in personal human relationships, everywhere. If you oppress someone, the weakest man on earth, long enough, you will be destroyed. It's inevitably. It is like the story I heard in South Africa. A man was pitting on one of those big truck tubes, and he was inflating that tube. He forgot the pressure gauge; he went on and on putting more and more air into that tube, while he was sitting on it. Then something happened; the tube blew up. The man was found in a few pieces.

It is inevitable. Whenever there is oppression, there is compression, and this is inevitably followed by explosion. You can't help it. Whether you call it history, whether you call it politics, whether you call it social relationships or family relationships, no oppression can go on forever. Therefore, the Upanishads say, "Satyameva Jayate." "Truth alone triumphs."

Goodness alone triumphs. This evil does not have even a temporary triumph. If you look at the same tube, give it a personality, make it something human, and this chap is sitting on it, and that one, lying inside the tube, says, "All right, all right, go on, go on, a little more," and he is flexing his muscles all the time, and then, whoomp! off it goes! Now, in other words, oppression actually helps the building up of the power. Suppression actually enables the building up of that power. Even a little boy, if you corner him, if you get him against the wall and keep hitting him, will give you a kick, and you will land over there. You may explain it physiologically, that at that moment the adrenal glands released their hormone, and it filled him with energy. But this is the inevitable truth: oppression is followed by compression - and compression releases energy, and results in explosion.

That is what we call Avatara. Avatara is literally 'descent of God for the ascent of man'. Descent of Divinity. Divine intervention in the history of humanity. Big words. High sounding words. In extremely simple language, it is merely the manifestation of the power of goodness. If you again go back to our equation between good and God, the difference is zero. Goodness, when it is oppressed and compressed sufficiently, explodes, and the Divine is born. History records quite a number of such Divine interventions in the affairs of humanity.

I read somewhere, of some Christian priests telling the Hindus, "Look, we, in our history, had periodic divine interventions. Your God is not concerned with your history at all." I am afraid that this sort of attitude does no one any good. On the contrary, I feel that this person, whom the Indians call Krishna, was no other than Christ. Most Indians and Christians may rebel against this idea. A number of them may accept it. And then, up come the scholars, one of those computer minds, who says, "Oh, no. What rubbish! Why? Jesus Christ we know lived two thousand years ago. And can you prove that Krishna lived?" Even in the case of those who accept the historicity of Krishna, they are not quite sure when he lived. Some say he lived 5,000 B.C. and some think he lived 3,000 B.C. What is the difference between 5,000 B.C. and 3,000 B.C? 5 minus 3 is 2; the rest is just zeros.

What do we know? To the computer mind, there is a terrible difference. It's impossible. It's illogical. His mind is prejudiced, inflexible. But then, to be told that Jesus Christ was born in the year 4 B.C. sounds very sensible to him. What is B.C.? Before the birth of Christ. Somebody was born four years before he was born. That somehow sounds all right. The calendar was different in those days, and some error crept in.

We are talking about a period before printing was invented, before newspapers were invented - and so the world was much more peaceful. We are talking about a period from which very few records have come down to us, and therefore, we must look at prehistoric events with an amount of understanding, and with the least dogma or bias or prejudice possible. Look at the story. Krishna was born, we don't know when, at a time when evil was thriving, and the good people were being oppressed. Krishna was born in a prison. Jesus Christ was born in a manger. A sort of location which our normal mind doesn't want to associate with such a great personality. A very humble beginning here, a very humble beginning there. I am demonstrating with two hands; but please remember that both hands belong to the same personality. And immediately after the birth of Christ, the child was whisked away, for fear of some dreadful king. Immediately after the birth of Krishna, he was also whisked away, for fear of his uncle who was also a king. Here, there is massacre of all children.

There, there massacre of all children. Both these children grew up. Very early in their life they started questioning orthodox beliefs. Jesus Christ went into a temple and started chasing all the money changers away. Krishna is said to have stopped certain forms of worship as waste of time and money. He said, "What are you doing? Why are you interested in such useless forms of worship? You must worship God."

And then they grew up, and they began to teach. If you read the Sermon on the Mount and the Bhagavad Gita, you'll find no fundamental difference. But very few people read these things. We only read about them. We don't read the Gita. We only read the commentaries. That is, you read me, not Krishna. We don't read the Sermon on the Mount. We go about saying, "You know that Jesus Christ was the greatest person on earth?" All right, what did He say, then? "Oh, don't ask me all that." We are only interested in saying, "My master was greater than yours." I don't know what my master said, and you don't know what your master said. The two things are identical, absolutely. You could even say that one quotes from the other. One speaking with the paraphrase of the other.

Then, they had power over the elements. Jesus Christ stopped a tempest. Even the wind and the waves obeyed him; and Krishna merely sips the forest fire and drinks it. All sorts of miracles he performed. Christ walked on water, Krishna also walked on water. Then, it goes on and on and on, the stories are absolutely parallel. A few miracles here and a few miracles there; a few impossible stories here, and a few impossible stories there.

And then, finally, Jesus Christ was crucified. What does crucified mean? Nailed on to a tree. Nailed on to a piece of wood, a tree. And the same story is repeated here. Krishna, it is said, was sitting under a tree and a hunter, looking through a bush, mistook the foot for the face of a buck, and aimed and shot. You can imagine, if a man was sitting under a tree with the foot hanging down, and he was shot through the foot, the arrow would go through that foot, and nail him to the tree.

Then, the last scene in the drama. You know what happened to Jesus Christ. He said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The forgiveness is even illustrated in the case of Krishna. The hunter runs and falls at the feet of Krishna, and says, "Forgive me. I am sorry. I didn't know it was you. I thought it was a deer." And Krishna says, "Ah, don't worry. You did my will. You were only obeying God's will. I had willed that I should leave the world and go. I only made a short of drama." And Krishna said, "I not only forgive you but make sure that you ascend to Heaven before me." A sort of space vehicle came down to lift Krishna off to heaven and he tells the assassin, "Look, you had better go up first. And then, after leaving you up there in heaven, send this chariot back, I will come up, next trip." So that there the assassin was forgiven, and here, he was not only forgiven, but this forgiveness was illustrated by sending the assassin to heaven.

There is a lost, unknown period in the life of Jesus Christ; quite likely, certain stories associated with Krishna, Krishna's boy-hood, were also later filled in by historians. We don't know what happened then. A divine birth, a divine child, and suddenly he starts playing around, he is pictured as a very naughty boy. Maybe these are all just stories, we don't know. And later, again he becomes a great statesman, a wonderful philosopher, a great teacher, an enlightened personality. Very often when I read these stories, I wonder whether they are two different personalities, or whether we are reading about one person, Christ who was Krishna.

This Krishna became the charioteer of Arjuna, one of the Pandavas, the good people we were discussing yesterday. When war was proposed, Krishna said he would not fight, but became the charioteer of one of the warriors on the good side. As soon as the two armies had assembled, Arjuna told Krishna,

senayorubhayormadhye ratham sthaapaya mechyuta yaavadetaanniriksheham yoddhukaamaanavasthitaan (Gita I-21)

In the middle of the two armies, place my chariot, O Krishna, so that I may behold those who stand here, desirous to fight.

Arjuna says, "Look Krishna, take my chariot and place it right between the two armies, so that I may take a good look." And Krishna says, "Yes sir." Now, here is a wonderful lesson for us, the lesson which is again in accord with the life of Jesus Christ. One whom the world adores as an incarnation of God, becomes a charioteer, a driver, a chauffeur, to say "Yes sir", to a mortal man. And please remember, that is what Jesus Christ taught too, when he washed the feet of the apostles. A similar story is also told of Krishna, that he washed the feet of all the holy men in an assembly. When Krishna took the chariot, and placed it between the two armies, Arjuna took a good look at the enemy army, and collapsed. Why? He says, "Aha, they are my people. They are all my own friends, my own cousins." Here is a tremendous lesson for us. It is this sense of "my"-ness that leads us into trouble.

It's tremendously simple. A man smokes. I feel that it's not right for a young man to smoke. But I like coffee, that's all right; coffee is not such a bad thing, smoking is. Why is that? Drinking coffee is my habit. Smoking is his habit. All his evil habits must go. Mine are all right. I am always fond of something which is mine. My philosophy is always right. My brother is always good. My people are the chosen ones. It is this thing that is the cause of all our miseries and anxieties.

I don't know if you have thought about this. Mister is the word. You know it can be contracted into Mr. Good. Keep that in mind. "I" is the first person singular. It's possessive case is "my". Why is that? Take for instance, "you" becomes "yours"; there is some sort of similarity. But here, between "I" and "my', there is no similarity at all. My own feeling is this: that this 'my' is not the possessive case of "I" - I cannot possess anything. This is my mala. But it is not my mala. I can leave it here, and go away. Any one can take it, and call it "My mala" again. So, a man can never possess anything. Impossible. This word, therefore, is not really the possessive case of "I," but it is a contraction. It is merely a contraction of thee word "'misery." That is what Krishna points out right in the beginning. The moment you use the word "my", you have surrendered yourself to misery. You try to possess something. You can't. It possesses you. A great philosopher said that the only way in which you can prove your possessions is by giving them away. The only way you can prove that this is mine, is to give it away to somebody else. Otherwise, it possesses you. If you say, "This is mine, I don't want to lose it," it possesses you. This little word "My" is the root of all misery.

On the one hand, it entails misery, it gives birth to misery. You are happy when you have it, you are unhappy when you lose it. And, since all that is born must die, all that is created must perish, and all meeting must end in parting, when you want to say, "This is my object of pleasure," you have already sown the seeds of unhappiness. This is one aspect of it.

The other aspect is, what is "Mine" we always tolerate. My defects are not defects, I know the reason why they are there. My philosophy is right. My point of view is the only truth, and everything Mine is all right. We tolerate a lot of evils within ourselves. We don't even try to recognise them and eradicate them, because of this one simple word - My. So, if we feel that all beings in the world are "my kinsmen", we shall be loving and understanding. Demonstrating that, Krishna begins his teachings.

 lecture 4

Till Arjuna came onto the battlefield, he had the feeling - "these are wicked people, they must be killed. They must be conquered, they must be destroyed." When he faced them, he saw in front of him, not wicked people whom it was his duty to destroy, but his friends and relatives.

Arjuna was a Kshatriva, warrior. It was his duty, his business, his job, to chastise unjust people. Those of you who are students of Bhagavad Gita, must please remember this. The expression, tasmaat yuddhyasva bhaarata - therefore, fight Arjuna, occurs several times in the scripture. This has led many misinterpreters to declare: "Look. These people talk of non-violence. Absurd. Even their own God, Krishna, commanded his disciple to fight." It is good to remember that this commandment was addressed to Arjuna, only because that was his duty. It was like a commander in the army telling his soldiers, "Fight!", on the battlefield. Just because he said "fight" in one context, the soldier should not carry it over even to his barracks. That would be disaster. He can't turn around to his cammander and say, "Oh, you asked me to fight, so I am fighting." The command has to be taken with reference to the context, understood properly with reference to the context.

As I said on the very first day, absolutely no blind faith or blind acceptance will do here, in the practice of the Yoga of the Bhagavad Gita. This is an extraordinary Yoga. In Hatha Yoga, the Yoga of physical culture, someone might say, "Put your arms up." Here, this is a Buddhi Yoga, Yoga of Intelligence, Yoga of Discrimination, Yoga of Understanding. If he says, "Put your hands up", I would very much like to know where is 'up'? What do you mean by up? I must try to understand the commandments. Those seekers who endeavour to read general rules in the Bhagavad Gita, will be terribly disappointed. They are the ones who complain of contradictions. "Look at the Gita. In one place it says this, and in another place it says something entirely different. In one chapter one thing is said, and in another chapter something quite the contrary is said." Exactly! Why were these contradictions introduced or allowed to remain in the Gita? In order that we may understand, not swallow.

In these days of prefabricated houses, predigested foods, and preconceived notions, this word 'understanding' is very important. When it comes to the question of food, I think a lot of us have forgotten that God has put a lot of funny things into our mouth. A tongue and two rows of teeth to masticate this food, and send it down slowly. Oh no, we are more interested in gulping it down. With the result that nature withdraws the teeth. We don't need the teeth. Well! never mind, pay somebody else, and we will have a set of dentures. The value of the dentures being that you don't have to brush your teeth, you can wash them outside. All these things are being disused. More and more human faculties are coming into disuse - not abuse, but disuse, which is more dreadful.

There was a great man called Swami Vivekanan is in India. It seems that he said once that he preferred a bold rogue to a cowardly saint. A bold rogue stands some chance of achieving something, when he right-about turns. A cowardly, good man very often ends up in a corner. He is not bold enough to do something wicked, and he is not bold enough to do something good. We need to make use of our faculties. We need to use our intelligence. We need to use our understanding. And if we surrender our understanding, we will not understand the Gita. It is not a scripture to be swallowed. Nothing that is said there applies to us in our present day life, literally. But everything that is said there applies to us in our everyday life, at the present moment, in spirit.

So that, when he said 'Kill', it didn't mean keep killing indiscriminately. But, as we shall see, 'do your duty.' Now, it is here that there are confusions. This man Arjuna comes on to the battlefield, looks at the enemies, and says, "No, they are not my enemies any more. They are my cousins, relatives, uncles, cousins of my father. How can I kill them?"

What happens to our sense of duty? Why should it depend upon our sentiments? Why should it depend on our assumed relationships? The relationship is only our presumption, assumption. Is it real? For example, a young man joins the police force. A few young people are rioting on the University campus. He is asked to stop the rioting, he wields his baton right and left, hits some people on the nose, some people on the arm, etc. He does his duty. Why? He has no personal relationship towards anyone. He gets married to one of those girls, and a year later, the same lot riot again. Now, this time, when he starts using his baton, it won't fall on that one person, that girl. Why, what happens now? Why doesn't he do his duty? Because now a personal relationship, a sort of mine-ness has come.

In some cases, we assume a sort of personal relationship. Hence, this leads to bondage. Am l bound to my business, or have I forged that bondage upon myself? Who has bound me to whom? to what? I have assumed that bondage myself. I want to be bound.

I don't want to offend any pious and religious people here, but I have often been shocked by this expression in the Lord's prayer. "Lead us not into temptation." Because I don't think God leads us into temptation. Oh no, no, God would never lead us into temptation. I believe that the original version was: "Leave us not in temptation, but deliver us from sin." All the troubles and difficulties that we find on the path of our lives are made by our own very good selves! All, or most of these difficulties spring from this little word "my". My friends, my relations, my wealth, my philosophy of life, my religion, my church, my body, my shirt, my house, my, my. Wherever there is this my, then misery is not far away. Misery has not entered us. We have entered into misery. I am afraid that nobody can save us. If we do not wake up to this truth, feel this internal tragedy ourselves, nobody can save us. And that is what the Holy Bible says right in the Genesis chapter. Adam and Eve have been given freedom of choice, free will to choose their conduct, and even God will not take that away. That we should exercise our free will, and freely choose to be good, is His will. I don't say that God wants us to be wicked or vicious. If we deliberately choose the wrong path, He will wait. We may go wrong. It doesn't matter, we will come back. So, that is the law of life. We choose to forge our own bondage. We put chains around our own necks. It is done by us. This is one of the greatest teachings of the Bhagavad Gita.

Says Krishna in the Gita,

aatmairvahyaatmano bandhuraatmaiva ripuraatmanah. (Gita VI-5)

For this self alone is the friend of oneself, and this self alone is the enemy of oneself.

You are your own friend, and you are your own enemy. Don't try to throw your burdens on to somebody else. If I pass my exams, I say, "Oh what a wonderful student I am." If I fail, "Funny teachers!" Somebody else is at fault. In my school days, we even used to blame, not the teacher, because some of the teachers were very good, but his wife, "She must have been nagging him, or behaving in a funny way that day, and just after the nagging had gone on, he must have marked my paper, and you know the result."

Now, this is the bane of our existence. To save me, I want somebody else. To lead me, I want somebody else. If I pass, it is me; but if I fail, it is somebody else's fault. All the time, we want a scapegoat. I am the best of all angels on earth, only you can't see my wings. If only this had been like that, if only this thing had happened, if instead of this government we had such and such a government, I would be a superman. Somebody, someone or other we want to blame. Why do we want to follow somebody? Not because we want to follow that person, but we want somebody standing there, with broad shoulders, ready to receive all our abuses. Why did you do this? "Oh, he taught me wrong." Why did you come, to grief in this? "Oh, that fellow was a fool. I thought he was a great saint, so I followed him." This is what happened to one of the Swamis in India. The disciple thought the Swami was not a human being, he thought he was divine. So he went to him, and suddenly discovered that he was a human being. Why does he want to blame the Swami for that? He should blame himself; his eyesight was poor.

With the young people changing their mode of dressing, this sort of thing might happen around the corner every day. You think she is a girl and follow, and suddenly it turns out to be a boy. Who is to blame? Is that boy to blame, or are you to blame? We don't accept responsibility. We want to find somebody, somebody else to throw our blame on. Hence, when we say we belong to this church, that religion, or this sect, it is not because we are sincere in our seeking. It is not because we really want to follow, this holy man, or this church, or this sect. We are all the time looking. "I'll try to follow this, man. Well, if something goes wrong, I can blame him." It's a ridiculous way of living. Krishna points out very bluntly, "If you are self-controlled, your mind is your best friend. If your mind and senses are under your control, these very mind and senses which lead you astray, will be your friends. And if your mind and senses are unruly, they will lead you astray. They are your enemies."

When I assume this relationship, "These are my people', it is my fault. No one else is to blame. I remember at some other university, where I was asked to give a lecture, I had mentioned the word renunciation. During question time at about half past ten at night, one good lady was terribly upset about the Indian concept of renunciation. You know how when Buddha renounced, he renounced his wife and child, and went away to the forest. I must have hinted at that, or told the story. And Jesus had said, "Leave all these things and follow me." She said, "You talk of renunciation. Is it not running away from duty? What about my husband and children? How can I leave them and run away? Is it right for me to do that?" I don't remember the full answer, but I think I said that I didn't insist that anyone must run away, but some people may be called. But then, in answer to her question, I asked a question, "When a Swami comes and tells you that, you start arguing. But there is another invisible power, not a Swami power, who might come and knock at the door." Who is that? Death. When that Death knocks at your door, which of you has the courage, to say, "Look, my daughter is getting married, please wait, and then I will come?" No chance! When death knocks at the door, you just leave everything and go, even the food on the table.

She kept quiet.

When this sort of good choice is offered to us, again you see we want to blame our cowardice on somebody else. I am cowardly. I am attached to my family. I am attached to these people. I don't want to admit that. I want to believe in some other philosophy, some other rule, some other game, to cover up my own weakness. It is useless waste of time. Hence, Krishna is very clear cut here. It's your business. If you want to do it, do it. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. Don't blame it on other people.

I had a wonderful experience in Johannesburgh, South Africa. A very young and charming girl, the daughter of a very good friend of mine, was sitting there and smoking. I don't have very many prejudices, but I somehow don't like women smoking a cigarette, I don't know why. What is the difference between a man smoking and a woman smoking, I don't know. I still have that bit of a prejudice. I said to her, "Why do you smoke?" Now, she was a brilliant young girl. She took another big puff, and replied, "I like it." I said, "I like your answer. I may not like your smoking, but I like your answer."

That is the honesty that is demanded of us. Not because somebody is going to be impressed by your honesty, but because that is going to lead us to Truth. That honesty will lead us to Truth. This is where the lesson starts. 'My people', and therefore I don't 'want to fight. There is a delusion there.

There is a confusion there. You know, we are all learned men. Knowledge is becoming more and more cheap, more and more universal, and more and more worthless. We have read all sorts of scriptures, all sorts of religious books, all sorts of philosophical tomes. Huge volumes. Encyclopedias of religious knowledge. I have bumped into quite a few of these great men and women, who have an answer to any question. They know everything. Whatever they want to do, they can always support with a reason, with some quotation, from some scripture or other. That, strangely enough, was what Arjuna did! Arjuna starts telling, "Krishna (Krishna was a sort of cousin to him), Look, this is useless and sinful. We shouldn't fight and kill one another."

Very sensible! Not to fight is a wonderful thing, a perfect precept. But then it has to have a context to make valid. Out of context, 'not to fight' is not valid. Ahimsa or non-violence is not valid in certain circumstances, unless you belong to the few who have no concern about the world, who don't even see the world. There were such great men once upon a time. But, in the context of our daily life, we again have to find out. "Am I running away from this battle, this duty, which may even involve violence?" He must ask himself, "Am I excusing myself from this, because I have a very strong conviction that all killing is bad, or because I am afraid to hold a rifle? Or, my sweetheart is at home, I don't want to leave her and go to Vietnam"? It is a very difficult thing. There is no general rule at all. One has to weigh every situation on the balance of his own discrimination, and arrive at his own conclusion. There is no general rule.

Arjuna says, "If we kill one another, the whole social fabric is destroyed." Perfect. But not in this context. And, what did this wonderful divine being, Krishna, do? He kept quiet. For, this was the ancient rule: unless your advice is sought, don't offer it. We Swamis are breaking this rule. Even without being asked I go and give advice, which is what I did in the case of the girl whom I advised to give up smoking. I gave her a lecture on the evils of smoking. The result? I wasted my energy and made a fool of myself. Nothing more. She is not interested. She doesn't care.

In those days, the great ones never did this. We were told that in India, and perhaps in the Western world too, great saints roamed about, incognito, pretending to be fools. The person who is sincerely interested in the quest of truth, must come, he must get himself into the proper frame of mind, and ask. Then he is open. To him shall the knowledge of the Self be imparted. That was the rule. And that was one of the reasons why the Indians never went out proselytising. Theirs was not the duty of going out and getting people, or saving people's souls. Oh, no, no, no, no, wait till the necessary maturity is arrived at. It's very important in Yoga and Spiritual life.

I will give you a rather crude and vulgar illustration of this, hope you will forgive me for this. Take for instance this great wave that is going round the world, of Sex Education. That is: you must tell little girls of four and five all about childbirth and so on. Do you know you can ruin the child of four or five years by telling her how a child is born? She can never understand it. Impossible. Absurd. Perhaps a young girl of sixteen, seventeen or eighteen, may be able to grasp vaguely the whole thing. But a girl of four or five or six cannot. Why? She has not attained that maturity, the psycho-physical maturity, which alone will enable her to see and realise. Again, till she has her first child, it will still be a mystery to her. It will no longer be a horror - if you tell that to a little girl of five or six, she will he horrified. In the case of the young lady of sixteen or seventeen, she may intellectually try to grasp the whole situation, but it will still be a mystery to her till she has her first child.

Now, if you understand this, you will understand the process of spiritual instruction. Spiritual instruction is not merely verbal communication of facts. This is very different from the place we are occupying today. We are occupying a University lecture hall. In a University lecture hall, it is merely communication of facts, so called facts. But in the case of spiritual instruction, the process is completely different. I wonder if you realise what the word instruction means? Instruction is construction within. A structure is put up within. There must be structure within. If somebody comes and tells you what the world looks like, does it mean anything to you? No, nothing at all. There is no structure in you.

Here it is instruction - spiritual instruction. And inspiration. The relation between the Guru and disciple is so close - it is inspiration. One inspires, as it were, breathes into the other. God breathed into that dust, and it became Man. God breathed life, and it became a living soul. In exactly the same way, the Guru must breathe into the disciple - then there is instruction. A structure is put up within. That is what is needed. The disciple must be ready for it, disciplined, mature. Till that time comes, the Gurus or great Masters don't teach them. It is not as though they were callous or indifferent. Again, these Indian Gurus have come in for a lot of condemnation and criticism. On the one hand, people say, "All these people are going around telling all sorts of funny things." On the other hand, people say, "All their knowledge they keep as a close-guarded secret. Unless you bribe them heavily, they won't teach you."

It's not that. They will wait till you mature. They wait - they are not callous, they are not indifferent. They don't want to make money out of this. No, no, no, no. They are only waiting for you to ask. When will you ask? When you are mature. Ask in the right spirit, with the right attitude. Till then they will pretend that they know nothing.

I will give you an example. Again, I am not running anybody down. This happened in our monastery. Swami Sivananda was sitting there, and two or three of us were sitting in front of him, doing some work, when in came a very important person. He was a Doctor of Philosophy, and all sorts of things. He was more learned than all of us, in terms of book-learning. We welcomed him, took him inside, gave him a chair. He looked at Swami Sivananda, and asked, "Swamiji, what is the difference between Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Savikalpa Samadhi?" A very high philosophical question. Samadhi is super-conscious state, and has itself been classified into quite a number of types. In one type, the feeling "I am" exists; in another type, even the feeling "I am" is gone, Cosmic Consciousness alone exists. And now he is asking, "What is the difference between Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Savikalpa Samadhi?" We were youngsters sitting there, and we thought, "All right. We wouldn't have dared to ask this question of our Guru. But here is a man who has asked. Let us take advantage of this, and listen to the Swami's answer." Swami just put his spectacles up, "Hmmmm. Hmmmm. Would you like tea or coffee?" This man thought that perhaps Swami was trying to entertain him; so, he said he would have a cup of tea. Swami sent someone for tea, another for some biscuits. Now, where is the answer to the question? The philosopher, poor fellow, didn't want to repeat the question. He perhaps thought that he had floored the Guru. "He says he is a very great man, but he couldn't even answer my question." The conversation had reached a sort of deadlock. Even before he could finish, his lady walked in, looked at him, "What are you doing here? For such a long time I have been waiting for you down there." And, quietly - I can't describe to you the scene, any bachelor looking at it would never want to get married - quietly he got up; he bowed to Swami Sivananda, said to her, "Yes, I am coming," and walked out. Now when he had gone, then came the answer. Swami Sivananda looked at us, and said, "Such is the man who wants to know the difference between Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Savikalpa Samadhi." When his wife comes and shoots at him, quietly, like a slave, he gets up, and walks behind her. And he wants to know the difference between the different states of God-realisation!" This is what the Eastern Mystic avoids - immature intellectual curiosity.

Krishna keeps quiet. A few minutes later, Arjuna the seeker, realising his own insufficiency, surrenders himself to the feet of the Guru. That is the attitude.

These two things are important. Realising our insufficiency. We can't go and surrender ourselves at the feet of a Guru, whoever he may be, just because it is the fashion. You will not get any benefit out of it. "He has a Guru, therefore I also want to have a Guru." It is more like getting a piece of furniture into your room. Guru is not a piece of furniture. He is a Light. He is a fire. I must be disciplined enough to look within, introspect, realise my insufficiency. It is not as though I am nothing, therefore I go to a Guru. If I am nothing, what am I going to offer my Guru? Nothing. I am a dead burden, dead weight. No. I am not nothing. I have tried my best on my own, tried to seek the truth on my own, I have struggled hard. I don't want a Guru to take over my burden. What do we think the Guru is? A cloth to wipe off our sins? I sin, and then I go to my Guru, and he will take away all my sins? Guru is not soap and towel, or an electric broom. "Oh, I am a sinner, Lord, please take away all my dirt!" What do you think he is? A vacuum cleaner? I go and stick my head under his feet and all my sins are gone! It's absurd! We are blaspheming all the time.

You try your best. God has already given you a wonderful body, a wonderful brain, a heart to understand, to knock. Ah, a beautiful thing. Even those who read the Bible, and say they are Christians, read only the convenient partions, whatever is convenient to them. The Bible says, "Knock, and it shall open." Jesus Christ wasn't thinking of these modern automatic doors which open as you walk towards them. He didn't say, "Walk, and it shall open", but "Knock, and it shall open." You have to take the trouble to knock. We are wonderful people. Great seekers, we are. We lie down on a soft bed, with an eiderdown drawn right up to our nose, "God, please save me." Of course He will save you - put you to sleep. "Knock, it shall open." Knock! Knock! The effort must be taken. Having reached that door, having pushed that door, I find that it is beyond my strength to open it. I knock. It is then that the divine intervenes and saves us.

Another rather illiterate foreign Yogi has criticised the Yoga philosophy, "Look at these people. Yoga is un-Christian." Why? Because the Yogis say that they will save themselves. They don't need God to save them. I don't know where he got this idea from. In the Bhagavad Gita itself, it is said,

sarvadharmaanparityajya maamekam sharanam vraja aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayishyaami maa shucha (Gita XVIII-66)

Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone; I will liberate thee from all sins; grieve not. "Don't worry. Come. Surrender yourself to me. I will liberate you."

The final act of liberation is not achieved by human personality. It is the gift of God. But, just because the final act of liberation is the gift of God, we shouldn't wait for the Sadhana or the spiritual practices to be done by Him. No, no, no. Go to the utmost of your own ability. That ability has been bestowed upon you by God. The ability to pray, the ability to meditate, the ability to choose the righteous life, have already been bestowed upon you by God. Strive. And then realise your further insufficiency, and surrender. When a disciple comes with this surrender, then the guru initiates,

kaarpanyadoshopahatah svabhaavah prichchaami tvaam dharmasammudhachetaah

yat shreyasyaannishchitam bruhi tanme shishyasteham shaadi maam tvaam prapannam (Gita II-7)

My heart is overpowered by the taint of pity; my mind confused as to duty. I ask Thee. Tell me decisively what good for me. I am Thy disciple. Instruct me who has taken refuge in Thee.

Says Arjuna, "I am confused. This seems to be right, and that also seems to be right. This seems to be wrong, and that also seems to be wrong. Now, what am I to-do?"

This is a dilemma we often find ourselves in, very often in life. This seems to be right - the opposite also seems to be right. Take, for instance, the parents of a teenage boy. You hear that he is drinking. You don't want him to drink. "What shall I do? Give him a belting?" "Ah, but he's a young man. How can I do that? It's wrong to hit." Hitting him seems to be right, hitting him seems to be wrong. Well, let him go. That seems to be right. "If I don't stop him, be may continue. I may be responsible for his misconduct." Again, that seems to be wrong. Hitting seems to be wrong, not hitting seems to be wrong. Not hitting seems to be right, hitting seems to be right. "What am I to do?" It is here that the Bhagavad Gita can help us.

I am sure, quite a number of you begin to feel now, "But we don't find ourselves in this quandary very often in our life." You may feel this some time in your life, but there are thousands of people living in the world today, to whom this problem is absent. It doesn't arise in their minds at all: murderers, dacoits, scoundrels, prostitutes - there is no problem in their case. As a wonderful man said, "In the case of a congenital idiot and an enlightened person, there is no problem at all." A man who is in a swoon, and a man who has attained God-realisation, both commit no sins. But the man in a swoon is not a saint. Why? After some time he will wake up, and then comes trouble. A man who is asleep tells no lies, but that does not make him a saint. A man says, "For six or seven hours, I never told a lie." What a wonderful person! He was asleep. Tickle him. As soon as he opens his eyes, he will bluff you.

To a born criminal, crime is not a problem. There are people in the world who have just graduated to the human level. They are not responsible for the crimes they are committing. Their conscience is animal conscience. I do not suggest here that you must let such people go, and do as they like. No. Just as, for instance, if your own pet dog goes mad and bites you, what do you do? Shoot him. In the same way, if this man, even though he is not responsible from the point of view of evolution for the crimes he commits, in order to preserve the state of your society, you will have to punish him.

From the higher point of view, from the spiritual point of view, they are not yet evolved. In their case, there is no problem. There is no conscience. And, if you will pardon my saying so, a good proportion of human beings are in that state. They only appear to be human beings. They wear human dress. They really are not human beings inside.

It would take a lot of persuasion to make me believe that Hitler was a human being. I can't believe it. A person of such brutality. Why do we call it brutality? In English, when you say, "Look at his brutality", means "The fellow is a brute inside."

This is a wonderful lesson. The very fact that we often find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma - to do or not to - means that we are evolving. We are human beings. Only human beings may get into this trouble. Only human beings of a certain stage of evolution, will have this trouble. Others will not. It is when we are caught in such situations, that a scripture like the Bhagavad Gita helps. A criticism that has been levelled at the whole Gita itself has been this. Somebody said, "Ah, nonsense, it is 'totally untrue. Fictitious." And they have a reason. I gave you just a glimpse of the story yesterday. Two armies, facing each other, ready to go, and in the middle of these two armies stands one chariot. In it, there is a Christ, Krishna, and there is a man, Arjuna. In the middle of these two armies, these two are talking philosophy. You accept it? I accept it. I'll tell you why. Apart from my faith in the Gita, and the other interpretation I'll tell you now. I'll accept it because I have personally met a very great commander of the Indian Army, who exemplified this very thing in his own life. He was a very good friend of mine. Major General Yadunath Singh. He died a few years ago, after serving as the President's military secretary.

He was the commander in the Kashmir war. He was extremely religiously punctual in his meditation, and in the study of the Gita. Lots of us offer excuses why we didn't get up in the morning for meditation. The children cry, the husband is sick, the neighbours are making a lot of noise, etc. Every day, he would read one chapter of the Gita, no matter where he was. In a tent, right on the front line. He wouldn't miss his meditation. He has told me himself that on occasions he would sit there reading the Gita, bullets whizzing past. He knew he would die one of these days, we all have to die. Thus it is possible to practise this even on the battle-field. Thereforre, I am not surprised that on the battle-field, Krishna and Arjulla were discussing yoga.

Apart from that, my own feeling is this: that Krishna deliberately chose the battle-field to impart this wisdom to Arjuna, because he hid in it a special message. "Please let not your philosophy commence and conclude in your lounge." I saw a very wonderful Indian scholar who came to our ashram for a day. He was in trouble; so, we excused him. There he was, in an armchair, lying down, a tin of cigarettes on one side, and a copy of the Gita on the other. He said, as he sipped his drink, "Oh, you know, Swamiji, the Self alone is real." I don't know how to describe this. This is not the purpose of philosphy. It is not when everything is going right, everything is wonderful, your stomach is full, you have a big bank account, and you sit there and discuss what Krishna told Arjuna. Of course Krishna told it to Arjuna. Not to you. When you are in trouble, when you are actually engaged in the battle of life, when someone is aiming a bullet at your forehead, if then you say, "Ah, it is nothing. Only my body goes, not my soul", that is something. This is exactly the lesson I draw from the Bible, from the gospel. I am a Christian, but I am not an exclusive Christian. It is not so much the fact that Jesus was crucified that matters to me. It is not so much that Jesus was resurrected and He ascended to heaven that matters to me. I have heard so many similar stories in India, that I don't pay much attention to these things. What thrills my heart in the story of Jesus was that, when He was abandoned by everybody, when He was denied by His own disciples, by Peter, even then He did not flag. He went on. That is Yoga. That is the message of the Gita. Does your philosophy stand by you, strengthen you, fill you with spirit and courage, in the darkest moment of your life? Then, that philosophy is life.

 lecture 5

We were discussing the Guru disciple relationship, and the precise moment at which the light shines, the door opens. It is a two way process. Free will alone is insufficient. Grace is not partial, whimsical. God is not a whimsical monarch, a drunken monarch, who says, "All right, I'm pleased with you, you'll be saved. I'm not pleased with so-and-so, he'll be damned." No. We do not claim to know the mechanics of Grace, we do not know when exactly God bestows His Grace, and when God does not bestow His Grace, because the bestowal of Grace seems to depend on total surrender. Total surrender - a very tricky thing. How can one declare, "I have totally surrendered myself." Means what? You are a stupid egotist. 'You' are very much there. You have not surrendered yourself if you can say, "I have surrendered myself."

My grandmother used to play this game when we were sleeping. She would want to find out who was asleep, and who was pretending to sleep. She would walk into the room where we were sleeping, and she would prop up our hands, after declaring, "The children who are really asleep, will keep their hands up."

If you have done total self-surrender, how do you know? Who is it that knows? So, here is the puzzle. When do you know when you have gone to sleep? Have you ever been able to pinpoint that minute when you actually slipped from the waking consciousness, or dream consciousness, into sleep? No. Impossible. In exactly the same way, we do not know when surrender is complete.

A young man wanted to attain God-realisation. He wanted initiation from a great Master. His mother told him, "Go to that Master, take some fruits and flowers with you, offer them at his feet, bow to him, he will initiate you." The young man went to that Master's house, knocked at the door, and from within the Master asked, "Who is it?" The young man from outside replied, "It is I, sir, it is I." The master replied from within, "Come after I die." In the Indian languages, there is no distinction between "I die" and "I dies." So, this could also mean, "Come after I dies." The young man wept. What is the use of going to him when he is dead? But his mother was able to explain the Master's remark. She said, "My son, what he said was one hundred per cent correct. He didn't ask you to come after he died. No. After this thing called died. After surrendering, after destroying your egotism, your vanity, go to him. Then, with such total surrender, when you go to him, enlightenment is instantaneous."

I don't know if any of you are aware of a funny little story connected with Krishna. As a young boy, Krishna was very naughty and mischievous. It is said that there were a lot of young girls, all of them keen on marrying Krishna, all of them in love with him. They were doing some sort of ceremony to obtain Krishna as the husband. These young girls were bathing in a river, in the nude. In those days, it was not a normal thing to do. It is said that Krishna was walking along the roadside when he saw these girls bathing in the nude. Quickly, he gathered up their clothes, and went up a tree and sat there. When the horrified girls shouted, "Hey, give us our clothes," he said, "No, come up and take." People have been horrified by this story and say, "How can you think of this person as an incarnation of God ?" I am horrified that intelligent people could misunderstand this story. The basic element in the story is that these were girls who were bent on marrying this young man, and if he wanted to see them naked, all that he had to do was to marry them. They were ready, they were willing, they were eager, and yet, why did he do it? Perhaps to teach them a lesson, not to bathe naked in the river. If he had not come along, somebody else may have. Apart from this, it has a philosophical meaning. If you want God, you must go completely naked. Throw off all preconceived notions, all fear, all anxiety, all egoism, for all these things hang by that one peg, egotism, I-ness. If there is no I-ness, there is no ignorance, there is no anxiety, there is no fear, nothing. All that stands between us and God is Ego. This "I" is nothing but a mirror image of God. But we are not aware of that Truth. We somehow assume to this mirror mage, for this mirror image, a reality it does not possess. That is, the 'I', the mirror image, which is an appearance, an image of God - assumes a reality which it does not possess, and that is 'I', egotism. How this came about, we don't know. But this much we know, that this is the only trouble, the only obstacle. When this is gone, there is no further problem in life. Krishna wanted to teach them this lesson. You want to become one with God, to marry God? You want to be God's Bride, in the language of Christian mysticism. Shed all your clothes, all your coverings. Stand in your own pristine purity, nakedness, before God. That's what he wanted to teach them. To totally surrender to God.

Total surrender should not be born of lethargy, laziness, inertia, unwillingness to exert, but born of a proper and correct understanding of the inadequacy of human effort. The inadequacy of human effort can become clear to us only after human effort itself has reached its climax. Not before. How can you say, "Oh, no I can't do this," without trying? Have you tried? This is another thing where I am a bit dogmatic. I just can't take people, especially young people, who say, "Oh, no Swami, I can't do it." Why? How do you know you can't do it till you have tried?

It is better to have a broken arm trying to reach the moon, than to give up without trying. These people just want to blame somebody else. Somebody has to he blamed all the time. And then, suppose somebody attempts to do something and fails in that attempt. "You see, I told you! He is a fool." They must blame him now. Why don't we try, attempt something? Something great. Whatever you regard as great, attempt it, go on, to the limits of your endurance, the limits of your powers, powers that God has bestowed on you. Then, realising your inadequacy, pray, "God, I have done my job, I have reached the limits of the equipment that you bestowed upon me. I am finished, what next?" That is real surrender. Not a surrender anticipating inadequacy, but a, surrender born of the fullest realisation of human inadequacy.

The moment this surrender is accomplished, you are there. Nothing more is necessary. Surrender itself is Self-realisation. Hence, the moment Arjuna said, 'I surrender myself to you', Krishna reveals the greatest truth.

ashochyaananvashochastvam prajnaavaadaamshcha bhaashase gataasunagataasumshcha naanushochaati panditaah (Gita II-11)

Thou hast grieved for those that should not be grieved for, yet thou speakest words of wisdom. The wise grieve neither for the living nor for the dead.

This is a short verse of thirty-two syllables. You may even ignore the second line. A half verse of sixteen syllables. You may even ignore the second half here! You have one quarter, 'asochyaan anvashochastvam' - a brief mantra of eight syllables. I have used this as a talisman, and it has saved my life on quite a number of occasions. In plain language, it means, "You are worrying unnecessarily." I have tried this. Whenever there is a big worry, I close my eyes, and visualise Krishna standing in front of me, saying, "You are worrying unnecessarily," and I think, 'You are right, I am worrying unnecessarily." All worry is unnecessary.

We are born to work. We are full of energy. I feel that a human being is born to work, it doesn't matter what type of work. Perhaps somebody will say, "Ah, what good is sleep, then?" Sleep also is work. It is recharging the battery, the Pranic battery. I am giving you a random thought for you to take home. A great Mystic and Yogi declared that we do not derive prana or life force or energy from food. We do not derive energy from water. We may derive some sort of energy from air, but the bulk of the energy that we possess is derived from - you will be shocked - sleep. This seems to be true. Food and water can only give you cells, protein, the flesh. But the energy that is filled into those cells is gained during sleep. How do we gain this strength from sleep? We go to the source, and from there we replenish ourselves. So that even sleep, in a manner of speaking, is 'working', in order to replenish ourselves with pranic energy. Even during sleep, some part of our being is active. Now we are active, talking, listening, seeing. During sleep, we recharge this inner battery, so that, as long as we are alive in this world, we should be alive and kicking.

A lot of work there is in this world to be done, and again, the right spirit is important. If we adopt the right spirit in our work, in our activity, we shall be freed from worry. Worry always arises from work performed without the right spirit, with the wrong motive. Work performed or neglected, not in the right spirit, or with a bad motive. That is what leads us to worry.

No man has ever killed himself by work. As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago, a few scientists called gerentologists, went around the world asking questions of people who have either crossed the century mark, or were nearly there.

They went to an old man and asked him, "What is the secret of your longevity? "I have never smoked a cigarette, I have never drunk anything but water, I have been a vegetarian throughout my life, I had no serious sex life." Ah, good! Go to another old man, "What about you, sir?" "I have smoked all my life. I never touched water, always drank wine and whiskey, and I have led a very full life in all respects. I am happy, and long lived."

In this manner they went from person to person. They found that all of them gave contradictory views and opinions on this problem of what makes people live long. But eventually, these wonderful men who were conducting this research came to one brilliant conclusion which is worth remembering. They said, "All these people share one great quality. A spirit of dedication. They have discovered a purpose for their life, and they have relentlessly pursued that purpose. Right purpose or wrong purpose, is another matter. They have had a purpose in their life." So they said, "One who lives a purposeful life, lives long."

One can have a purpose in life, a goal in life, but not a motive. A motive is something completely different. So that, if we lead a purposeful life, trying to achieve a goal all the time, we will be free from worry. Why? Worry is born of wrong motivation, wrong attitude. Hence, Krishna tells us,

karmanyevaadhikaaraste maa phaleshu kadaachana maa karmaphalaheturhhurmaa te sangostvakarmani (Gita II-47)

Thy right is to work only, but never with its fruits; let not the fruits of action be thy motive, nor let thy attachment be to inaction.

There are some beautiful ideas here. Let me dispose of one idea first, "maa te sangostvakarmani." Don't imagine that, by not doing anything, you will achieve something wonderful. More and more people are following this, ecoming machines in this world. Not taking any initiative, "If I don't do anything at all, I can do no wrong." By leading this kind of cabbage life, don't think that you have attained Self-realisation. No. During the course of evolution, God's intelligence is so super-wonderful that He doesn't permit this bluff to go on forever. Suddenly something comes. Death knocks you down here. "Maa te sangostvakarmani", don't yield to lethargy, impotence. No, that will not do. A yogi's life is a full life, a dynamic life, all the time dynamic. Every cell of your body is vibrant with energy, life force. Dampening them is not Yoga. No, no, no!

Remembering this formula, I was very happy to read in a magazine, where a great medical scientist extolled the glory of exercise. I don't know if this is self-hypnosis or auto-suggestion, or if it is true. If you have been resting in your armchair for two or three hours, your pulse rate is high. You make yourself active for a little while, the pulse rate falls down, though it may be accelerated at first. The theory is that, when you are idle, the heart functions faster. Perhaps I just suggested this to myself; but I did this, and my pulse was slower after exercise. This is what is meant by Krishna in this verse, "Maa te sangostvakarmani".

If you neglect the exercise of your body and of your mind and intelligence, you will forfeit them. This is a very necessary prologue to the great truth that Krishna reveals to us. He says, Remember, the energy is there, you have got to use it. If you don't use it, you will forfeit it." And therefore, since the energy is there, use it.

Use it in the service of others, use it doing good to others, use it in leading a good life, a righteous life, for, "Karmanyevadhikaaraste". You have got a right to work, a right to live in this world. You have a right to express yourself in this world, you have a right to manifest all your latent faculties, all the hidden talents. You have a tight to do this. A birthright. There is something fantastic here. Fantastic teaching. You have got a right to serve. Exercise that right. "Maa phaleshu kadaachana". Don't have one eye on profit. Very often, we do this, even social workers. We want to do wonderful good to the world, one hand this way, one hand here. I am giving you, and pocketing something more. It doesn't do anyone any good. This is what causes worry.

If I come to you and say, "Look, I want to serve you. Give me an opportunity to serve you," nobody will say no. But if I come and tell you, "Look, I am a good typist, I will do some typing work for you, how much per week?" Then you would pull yourself up, and ask, "How efficient are you. Let me see, I may not want a typist just now."

There is no limit to service in this world. It is only when there this profit motive that a clash is brought about. The boss wants to extract as much work from his subordinates as possible. The subordinate waits to extract as much money from the boss as possible. This is where confliet comes in. "karmanyevaadhikaaraste maa phaleshu kadaachana" Don't look for the profit from what you are doing. Then you will be free from worry. This is one of our basic teachings. Throughout the Gita, Krishna merely gives a commentary on this basic teaching. "Don't worry."

How not to worry? The basic teaching is here. Go on doing your work. That itself is the reward. You are manifesting the hidden talents in you. You are realising yourself.

Self-realisation has been subjected to a lot of misunderstanding. It has come to mean sitting in a corner, looking at the tip of your nose. That is not Self-realisation. It is quite right, you need a focal point. You can look at the tip of your nose instead of the heart. No objection at all. But Self-realisation means a lot more. Do you know what you are? And have you made sure that that is real? Every aspect of yourself must become real. You shouldn't sit in a corner and bluff yourself, "Oh, I'm a wonderful man." Try. Don't talk. That is Self-realisation.

Self-realisation means: whatever you think you are or you can do, must be made real. If you think you have got perfect control over your body, sit down and say, "I am not going to change this position for three hours." That is physical Self-realisation. Come on and try it. If you say, "I am the master of my habits and cravings and desires," exercise that mastery. Make sure that it is real. Don't say, "Of course, it is only a silly habit, I can throw away whenever I want." When the cigarette is properly smoked and there is no more left, I can throw it away any time. Never a full cigarette. This sort of self-bluffing helps no one.

Self-realisation means this. Step by step, you are going to realise, make real, whatever is hidden in you. And the world gives us an opportunity to do this. The world has been created by God just for Self-realisation. Let us never bluff ourselves that 'If it wasn't for me, all these people would go to hell.' I don't think so. "If I did not exist, all these people may starve and die." I don't think so. You know why I say it is nonsense? I was given two slices of bread and butter by my host. Should I say that but for him I would have starved and died? Very doubtful. You know why? Because the wheat from which that slice of bread was made, was planted two years ago, already meant for me. He was only a channel. That is the right attitude.

What am I doing here? Attaining Self-realisation. What I am doing here now is Self-realisation. What you are doing here now is Self-realisation. And I can even be frank with you, now that we have come so close to one another. There was a doubt in the minds of some of our friends. Bhagavad Gita? No one may be interested at all. "Will the Swami be able to put across the message from some funny Indian Scripture?" Maybe not, but let us try! They did it. And I am attaining Self-realisation now. I am sure that most of you are doing the same thing. You have broken a barrier, so have I.

Whatever is hidden in you, bring it out, make it manifest itself in this world. That is Self-realisation. That, therefore, is an end in itself. Every action, every piece of activity, is an end in itself. Because, it is Self-realisation. The child playing with a toy, the young man breaking a glass, all is Self-realisation, if you can look at it in that spirit. God did not create the world in order that we may uplift people, elevate people, feed the hungry, clothe the naked. Why should we clothe the naked? Perhaps, if we did not clothe the naked man, he would have led a more healthy life. Don't let us cheat ourselves. We are bluffing ourselves. That is not the purpose. Self-realisation is the purpose. Each man and woman must realise the Self. Have you got compassion? Yes. Show it! How? By feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, serving the sick.

You remember what Jesus Christ said when somebody cornered Him, "That man is suffering. Is he suffering for his own sins, or the sins of his father and grandfathers?" And Jesus Christ answered, "In order that God may he glorified." He is not suffering for his sins, or the sins of somebody else. Don't bother about all that. Do your duty. That is the great commandment. This wonderful teaching of Jesus can be crudely translated into, "Mind your business." Don't try to fiddle around with other people's business. He is suffering. Do you see he is suffering? Then go, serve him. That is why he is suffering: because he wants to give you an opportunity to attain Self-realisation.

Now, this again is paradoxical. If we serve in this spirit, we will be immediately freed from worry. There is no motive. Why am I serving? There is no motive. There is not even the motive of freeing myself from worry. That is why I said it is paradoxical. I don't even have a desire to be free from worry.

If you want to worry, then why should I care. I have tried this on a number of people when they start crying. "If you want to cry, then cry. Why should I worry?" And, they immediately stop. Even worry is not so important to avoid. If we lived the Divine Life, if we lived in accordance with the teachings of Krishna, of the Gita, we would not worry.

But, it is not as though we are doing all this in order to avoid worry. It can hit us both ways. Like the people who can't sleep. There is a good man who could not sleep. He is a millionaire. That is the trouble. He goes to the doctor because he can't sleep, and the doctor says, "Ah, it is quite simple. Just throw one hand on this side, and one hand on that side, stretch yourself fully, adjust your pillow nicely, take a deep breath, relax, and sleep". The man thinks, "I'll try it. It looks very simple." So he goes home, lies down, one hand on this side, one hand on that side, the whole body stretched out, but, "Why can't I relax?" Now, this is another worry. Previously he was worried about not being able to sleep. And now that the doctor has given him a prescription, relax, he is asking himself the same question in another form, "Why can't I relax?" You see the point? Unless he forgets this nuisance, relaxing or not relaxing, sleeping or not sleeping, till then he won't go to sleep. He is worried.

It is again like the story told of a sick young man who went to one of those Indian Ayurvedic physicians. They believe not only in herbs, but also in charms. This man had some stomach trouble and he went to the Ayurvedic physician who gave him a tonic, laid his hand on it, blessed it, and said, "It is wonderfully effective. Just one dose and the stomach pain will go. Burt there is only one condition. When you drink it, you should not think of a monkey." Now he has ruined the patient. You know why? If he had not said it, it is quite possible that the man would not have thought of a monkey. But now that the doctor has sown the seed, every time he lifts the bottle, he asks himself, "What should I not think?" He remembers the monkey.

So, here again we must be very careful. We are told, "If you work in this fashion, do your job in this fashion, you will be free from worry." But freedom from worry is not the reward that promised. No. Worrylessness is something which follows. Freedom from worry is something which follows right action in the right spirit. And right action in the right spirit is to regard the action itself as its own reward.

The moment you think of a reward that is supposed to follow your action, you are asking for trouble. Do, because you have to do. Do, because that is why you are here. Do not bother about the reward. From this has been woven the theory of Karma. Perhaps, most of you are familiar with this word. I must say that, whereas Westerners have misunderstood this law of Karma in one way, Easterners have also misunderstood it in another way. In India, many people say, "Oh, it is my Karma." That is fatalism. Very often, in the minds of Westerners, I have discovered a misunderstanding - that they think that even the action that we are performing now is predetermined. No, no, no. Something wrong here, something wrong there.

This law of Karma should not lead us to fatalism. There is no sense of fatalism at all. You have a right to work. Don't worry about the fruits of your actions. Because, if you have done something right now, it must bear its right fruit at the right moment. It may not be now. A little later. Never mind, don't analyse anything here. Just keep doing what is right, persist in doing what is right.

Again, as you will notice, this philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita is a Self-oriented philosophy. It is not selfish, but Self-oriented philosophy. All the time, even as I am sitting and talking, even when I am doing something which may or may not be of great value to society, I am not interested in serving the society as much as I am in realising my Self. Service of society is one of the several ways in which I attain Self-realisation. The fullness of Self-realisation is not possible without service of society.

I serve, not because I suffer under a delusion that without me all these people will remain ignorant or foolish. Oh, no. It is because I will remain ignorant and foolish if I do not sit in front of you and render this service. This service that I am rendering now is a vital part of my Self-realisation. Hence, I have to be active. I have to realise the Self all the time, minute after minute. This is entirely my free will, this is an exercise of my free will. What it is going to lead me to is none of my business.

I wonder if I am making myself clear. It is an extremely important principle. If, when I am sitting here and talking to you, I am worrying about what your reaction is going to be, whether you are impressed or not, whether you like me or not, whether you understand me rightly or not, if I am all the time worried about your reaction, then I am not all here. I am split, one half here, one half there, looking at me through you. That is precisely the thing that brings about failure. And then I say, "Ah, my Karma." Nonsense! It is not my Karma. I didn't do it properly, that's all!

If you completely forget, completely ignore all expectations of a reward, but put your heart and soul into this work, naturally, you are all there. Your whole being is there. It must be successful.

This is a wonderful philosophy. It is also, perhaps, a great psychological truth. That is, it demands an integration of our personality. Whatever you do, your whole being must be there, not only your body. Your action must have an intellectual assent, it must not merely command your emotional personality. The whole thing, thinking, feeling, and willing, should all be there in one piece. That action is the most efficient action. And such action is possible only if we keep the reward severely out of the picture. It might come, it might not come. I suppose, if you don't tell people, "If you do this, you will be blessed with success," people won't come. On the other hand, if you hold this carrot in front of the donkey, the donkey may still be only aiming at the carrot.

That is the inevitable tragedy of all religions. They say that I must do charity. Why? So that I will go to Heaven. "One dollar in charity I will give; so, I must go to Heaven." If this is the attitude, you will never go to Heaven. Let us have a Heaven here. Whatever action we do, whatever we do in this life, let us do it happily, joyously. That itself is Heaven. Why do you want to have another Heaven? There is no use tempting or compelling people to do good. Oh, no. Why? Because, when they are tempted or forced, they are not all there. There is no integration of personality. And integration of personality is Yoga. Yoga means integration of personality. That's a very important thing to remember. And, if there is this integration of personality, then, naturally, automatically, our actions will become efficient. Hence, Krishna defines Yoga as "Yogah karmasu kaushalam." Yoga is efficiency in action. Whatever you do, you will be efficient. What is meant by efficient? Is your efficiency measured in terms of the money it brings you? No. Not at all. There was a great poet in the early part of this century, a contemporary of my Guru, Swami Sivananda. He was a revolutionary poet, a fantastic man; but, so poor. I have heard it said that he would write a stirring poem in Tamil, one of the South Indian languages, take it to one of these newspapers, and say, "Please, if you like, publish it in your name. I don't care. But please give me two rupees. I am hungry." He was a revolutionary nationalist, and he died a very premature death. Perhaps he starved and died. Today his portraits are unveiled here; his statues are unveiled there. These things happen, but he didn't work for them. If his efficiency meant an immediate reward for him, he was totally inefficient. His life was not one of success. Success came later; but he was not there to enjoy that success. His success was in his own work, his own Self-realisation.

There was another great saint and musician. He lived a self-imposed, poverty-stricken life; he spurned wealth. Today, every song that he composed brings a lot of money to the present-day musicians. He composed a song glorifying God, and expressing devotion to Him. Just as Jesus Christ said, "What does it profit a man if he acquires the whole world and loses his soul?" In exactly the same way he had sung, "What do I care for this wealth. I have got love of God enshrined in my heart." There are people who sing that song today, but before they go on the stage to sing it, they must first sign the contract 'How much will you give me for singing that song?"

Would you say that he was efficient or not? He was totally efficient. These two poets were totally efficient. Their action was perfect action. But did it bring them success? Yes and no. When this man composed this poem, his whole personality was there, poured into it. Every word of that song was filled with his spirit. That is what Yoga means. Therefore, he had performed the action of composing that poem very efficiently.

But, according to our standards, he was inefficient. In other words, we say, "If he is efficient, he must bring in more money." You know something funny here? You are equating efficiency with dacoity. If you are efficient, you must bring more money. So that, in order to be efficient, you need a little bit of good work, plus pickpocketing. He must know how to do it, very charmingly.

That was not the standard of good people. To them, efficiency meant self-satisfaction. He wrote the poem. He looked at it, he loved it. You do anything you like, even sweeping the floor. You look at it, you are thrilled, you are satisfied. That's all that efficiency means.

Don't again equate success or failure with the reward your action brings. That is where the snag lies. So long as our mind looks beyond the action to a reward, so long we cannot escape worry, anxiety, unhappiness. One who performs action in this spirit, karmanyevadhikaaraste, I have a right to work, and in being active in this world, I am but exercising my birthright, and I will be equanimous of mind, in a state of equilibrium. His mind will never be disturbed.

What disturbs our mind? Desire. Nothing but desire. Nothing but craving. When these are absent, the mind is in a state of uilibrium. Ask yourself now. Why is your mind in a state of equilibrium? Because at the moment, there are no desires. Later, it will start all over again. Bubbling, boiling. Why? Desires have started manifesting themselves in your mind.

What form does our desire take? Usually, the form of 'I am doing this, I must get that.' This is the tragedy of modern life. Nobody wants to do a thing without linking it up with the prospect of a reward. That is the tragedy. That is why we are unhappy. For Instance, I am a Swami. In India, in Gujerat, when a Swami is invited to have a meal, they will welcome him at the entrance of the house with a garland, take him inside, feed him very nicely, and on top of all that, they will give him what they call a dakshina, a love-offering. This is their tradition in Gujerat, but not often in other parts of India. Now supposing some Gujerati boys say, "Come home for lunch, Swami." I go there expecting to be entertained lavishly and worshipped, and given a dakshina of a hundred dollars when I take leave. I go to his house, he receives me with great honour and respect, feeds me well, and when I go, he slips a ten dollar note in my pocket. I am going to be disappointed. Why? I expected hundred and I got ten.

Supposing somebody else, who is not a Gujerati, invites me. I go to his house not expecting anything, and he puts a garland around my neck; I am already satisfied - it was more than I expected. nice lunch, very nice, and as I get up to go he gives me one dollar. Wonderful. Why is it wonderful ? Because I expected nothing.

Therefore, the happiness that we derive from life is in exact inverse proportion to what we expect from it. If you expect nothing, everything makes you happy. If you expect a lot, even a lot of things may not make you happy. Since therefore the Yogi does not expect a reward for his actions, his mind is in a state of constant equilibrium. A very beautiful definition is given in the Bhagavad Gita.

samatvam yoga uchyate (II-48)

Equanimity of mind, is called Yoga.

"Equanimity of mind is Yoga." This is the immediate fruit of performing our actions with the right spirit, without expectation of reward, feeling that the performance of the action itself is Self-realisation. We have the right to work, but not to the fruit thereof.

It reminds me of the Bill of Rights; it is not so much Bill of Rights, as Bull of Rights, haunting us. The word "Rights", what does it suggest to you? It is right, isn't it? But the workers in a factory say, "We claim our right!" Means what? How did it ever acquire the meaning of reward? The word "right" is most often used to denote "reward". It doesn't possess that meaning at all. My right! What is my right? My right to work. I have done that. Finished.

We should adopt this attitude: I have a right to work, I will work. But people say, "If we do this, they will take undue advantage of us." It is very hard for people to take advantage of a good man for a long time. Maybe for a day or two. Sooner or later, the continued good action of this good man will make it impossible for me to take undue advantage of him. What undue advantage can you take of me? Let's take my own example. I say, "I am a good typist, I will type any letters you want written." He loads me with all the work he has. He can't take undue advantage of me. You know why? Because there is some energy in me. God gave me this energy, and only that energy I am using, Self-realising, in order to serve him. Can he load me with some more work? Can he overwork me? You can't overwork. You will collapse out of fatigue. There is no undue advantage. That is all the energy I had. I have utilized it in his service and so I go to sleep. When people drive themselves to extremes, and have a breakdown, it is not overwork that got them there, but greed, the desire for "more profit, more reward!"

So, then, let us not worry about people taking undue advantage of us. We have a right, our birthright. That right is to work, and work in the right spirit. To live our life in the right spirit - and that is its own reward.