Chapter 5: Man's is Life's Invention

Question 1



Energy Enhancement                Enlightened Texts               Christianity                Theologia Mystica



The first question

Question 1



Mavji Savla,

LOGIC is a very small thing, life is vast. Logic is utilitarian, it is an invention of man. Life is non-utilitarian, it is not an invention of man; on the contrary, man is life's invention. Logic is one-dimensional, life is multi-dimensional. But for thousands of years man has been conditioned to believe that logic and life are synonymous.

This has destroyed the whole joy of the human heart, it has destroyed the most precious thing in existence: it has poisoned man's capacity to love, because logic goes against love, logic goes against bliss, logic goes against meditativeness, logic goes against godliness. But logic is good in a marketplace -- it is calculative, mathematical. Logic is good with things but not good with persons.

If you want to live with things logic is enough, but that is not going to be much of a life. When you live with persons, when you relate with persons, logic is not enough at all; in fact you have to put logic aside.

To relate to a person is to relate to an infinity. Logic cannot contain infinities. To fall in love means you are moving into the world of the uncalculated, the incalculable, the immeasurable, the uncharted. Logic will tell you, "You are going mad. Stop before it is too late!" Logic always creates a prison around you. Of course, it convinces you that it is for your own sake, it is for your safety, security, comfort. And in a certain sense it does give a certain security to you -- but that security is the security of death not of life.

If you want to be absolutely secure the grave is the best place; then there is no insecurity, no discomfort, no illnesses, no problems, no anxieties, no calamities, no death even! Once you have died you have died; it is all finished. Now you can rest forever. That's why on graves you will find these words: Now Rest in Peace. What else can you do in a grave?

One woman made a beautiful marble stone for her husband's grave: "Rest in Peace" was written on it in golden letters. After three days the will was opened and the husband had not left anything for the woman. She was furious. She rushed to the grave and underneath the golden letters "Rest in Peace" she wrote in her own hand "Till I Come!"

Life is insecure. There are wives and there are husbands, and there are children and whatnot. Life is insecure but that's the beauty of life, that's its adventure, that s its exhilaration, ecstasy. Logic makes everything dull, boring  -- two plus two is always four.

In life it is not so: two plus two is sometimes three, sometimes five -- in fact, it is never four! In life it is never four. And now even mathematicians, geometricians, logicians have started becoming aware of the phenomenon. A new branch of geometry has happened, non-Euclidean geometry; it has changed the whole Euclidean static world. In non-Euclidean geometry nothing is logical. But you will be surprised to know that Albert Einstein found it far more helpful in discovering the Theory of Relativity than Euclidean geometry, which is logical.

Albert Einstein, before he died, just two days before, said, "When I started my adventure into the world of science I was very certain that two plus two is four. Now I cannot say that -- I cannot say it with any certainty. All certainty is gone. As I have gone deeper into the mystery of existence. I have found that our logic is applicable only to the most superficial. The deeper you go, the more irrelevant it becomes." His last words were, "To me life is a mystery now, and I feel that there is something in life which is absolutely unknowable."

Logic believes in two categories: the known and the unknown. That which is unknown today will become known tomorrow. That which is known today was unknown yesterday. So there is not much difference between the known and the unknown; they belong to the same category. Logic does not believe in the unknowable -- and the unknowable is the very heart of life, the very heartbeat of the universe.

I am not against logic. Use it -- it is a beautiful strategy as far as things are concerned, the marketplace is concerned, the superficial world is concerned -- but beware that you don't go on carrying it into deeper layers of life and experience. There it is a hindrance.

Logic means mind. Mind is helpful in understanding the objective world. Mind is a hindrance in understanding the subjective world, because the subjective world is beyond the mind, behind the mind. You can use your eyes to see others, but you cannot use your eyes to see yourself. If you want to see yourself through your own eyes you have to use a mirror. To look in a mirror means you are creating a reflection of yourself -- which is not you, certainly not you, but you can see the reflection. Logic can see only the reflected glory of existence; it cannot see existence itself because existence is far deeper than logical formulations.

Mavji Savla, your question is significant, very significant.


To a very small extent, just skin-deep. Deeper than that logic loses all relevance; not only that, it becomes ridiculous.

A young officer's extreme keenness in demanding strict adherence to official regulations was causing problems.

Eventually the genial general took him aside for a chat on "man management," suggesting that the regulations should be taken as a guide and were not meant to be strictly applied.

"Where in the regulations," he asked briskly, "is that stated?"

There are people who live by the word and lose the spirit: we call them pundits, scholars, knowledgeable people. They live according to the literal meaning, they never think in terms of metaphors and poetry. And life is more metaphorical than anything else. It is poetry, it is pure poetry. It is music, it is sheer music.

A poor Englishman worked his whole life to educate his only daughter born from a birth that left him a widower. With a very meager salary he saved hard to give the girl a decent education and had her entered in one of the best schools in the country.

At the end of the year he went to pick up his daughter at the railway station.

"Tell me all your news, darling," he asked his daughter.

"Dad," said the girl, "you always trusted me so I want to tell you that during this last semester I lost my virginitude. "

"Nooo!" says the father desperately. "I can't believe it. After all the sacrifices that I made to put you in the best school in the country, you can't even tell me this news in proper English?"

"Am I mentioned in the will?" the nephew asked anxiously.

"You certainly are," replied the lawyer. "Right here in the third paragraph your uncle says: To my niece Sarah I bequeath a hundred thousand dollars, to my cousin Janice fifty thousand dollars. and to my nephew Charles, who was always curious to know if he was mentioned in my will, I say 'Hi, Charles.' "

One day a creditor knocks on the door of an impoverished English Lord. The butler opens the door and tells him that milord only receives at seven p.m. sharp.

That evening at the time appointed the creditor knocks again on the door, but he is told that the time for visits Is over.

"What do you mean?" exclaims the creditor in anger. "It is seven o'clock!"

"Milord receives at seven SHARP, sir," answers the butler, "not one minute before nor a minute after!"

Logic can make you very stupid. Of course its stupidity is a very decorated stupidity, polished, cultured, so it is very difficult to see the foolishness of it. But life is far more because logic can contain only one polarity. For example, logic can think of darkness OR light but not of both together; logic can think of life OR death but never of both together. That becomes inconceivable. But that's how it is: life is death too. Light is darkness too.

Logic will not be able to comprehend Dionysius' idea of luminous darkness; it will look simply mad. Luminous darkness? How can darkness be luminous? How can darkness be translucent? Darkness has to be dark, light has to be light. Logic believes in pigeonholes, in categories, and life is one organic unity. Everything penetrates everything else. There are no categories; life goes on flowing. Light becomes darkness, darkness becomes light. Birth becomes death, death becomes birth. Love becomes hate, hate becomes love. Friendship becomes enmity, enmity becomes friendship.

And now we know that a man can become a woman, a woman can become a man. There is no intrinsic impossibility in it. Just as electricity consists of two poles, the negative and the positive, the whole existence consists of polarities. Logically they look opposite, but if you put logic aside then they are not opposites but complementaries: without The negative the positive cannot exist. Then how can you call them opposites? If the negative is a necessity for the positive to exist, if the positive is a must for the negative to exist, they are not opposites, they are complementaries.

Now a totally different vision is arising slowly: the vision that takes opposites as complementaries. Aristotelian logic is dying, it is on its deathbed. In fact, it is dead; it is being kept alive by artificial breathing. The Theory of Relativity has dealt it the final blow, the death blow. The Theory of Relativity has simply transcended all logic. And that is the beauty of Einsteinian physics: it is for the first time that a physicist has spoken the language of the mystic. It is one of the greatest events that has happened in our lifetime: that physics speaks the same language as mystics have always spoken.

Physics has come very close to mysticism; that is the beginning of a meeting, of a synthesis. And the synthesis Is not very far away. Soon you will see -- those who have clear eyes can see it right now -- that logic has no more relevance because physics has gone deeper than the superficial, objective world. Now matter exists no more. You SEE matter, it is very logically there; in fact logically you cannot disprove matter.

One of the great English philosophers, Berkeley, was going for a morning walk with his friend, Dr. Johnson...

In Western philosophy Berkeley is almost the equivalent of Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya has said that the world is an illusion: it is only a dream, it is a thought, it does not consist of things, it consists of thoughts. We have always accepted that mystics talk such nonsense! Berkeley also used to talk the same way: that the world is only a dream.

Dr. Johnson was a very pragmatic and practical man, and of course very superficial too. He could not argue with Berkeley, so he took a rock from the side of the road and hit Berkeley's foot with the rock. Berkeley screamed, and the blood started oozing out of his foot.

Dr. Johnson laughed and he said, "Now what do you say? Is this rock real or not? And what is this scream all about if the rock is only a thought? How can it hit you?

And from where is the blood coming out, and why? You are just being hit by a thought?"

Berkeley could not say anything.

The friendship ended because this is no way to argue. But Berkeley was unaware of the Indian mystics. Had he known anything of Indian mystics he would have answered Dr. Johnson perfectly well. Berkeley was bringing a new idea to Western philosophy. In India it has existed for centuries. It is said about the great Buddhist monk, Nagarjuna, that he was caught hold of by the king of the country because he was saying that nothing exists, nothing at all. Existence is a pure dream.

He was far ahead of Berkeley and anybody else because he was saying the world is a dream, and because the dream is false how can the dreamer be true? The world is false, it is a dream, and because the dream is false the dreamer is false. So nothing exists: neither the dreamer nor the dream. Shankaracharya at least accepts that the dreamer is true, and Berkeley also accepts that the subjective is true, the objective is false. But Nagarjuna seems to be far more clear. If the objective is false, how can the subjective be true? If the seen is false, what is the proof of the seer? If the known is false, then how can the knower exist? -- on what grounds?

He was caught hold of by the king. The king was a very pragmatic man. He must have been like Dr. Johnson; maybe Dr. Johnson was just another incarnation of the same king. He caught hold of Nagarjuna, he listened to his ideas. It was difficult to argue with him, almost impossible. How can you prove that life is true?

For example, we are sitting here. I may be just dreaming you, or you may be dreaming me, or we both may be dreaming simultaneously. But what proof is there that you are really there and I am really here, that I am talking to you and you are listening to me? It may be just mind stuff, nothing else. And many times in your dreams you have seen me. Of course, I don't dream; so I don't see you in my dreams. I am so fed up seeing you the whole day that it is natural I don't see you in my dreams. And orange is such a dangerous color.

The king could not argue with Nagarjuna, but he had a mad elephant. So he asked the mad elephant to be brought before the palace. The person who was ordered to bring the mad elephant asked why.

The king said, "We have to give proof to Nagarjuna. We have to see what happens when the mad elephant chases him, catches hold of him and throws him a hundred feet away. Then we will see whether it is a thought or a reality! "

And when the mad elephant came Nagarjuna started running. The mad elephant was chasing him and Nagarjuna was shouting, "Save me! Save me! All that I was saying was nonsense. Forgive me!" And he was crying so desperately that the king had compassion on him. He stopped the mad elephant, he called Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna was trembling, perspiring, breathing hard, could not speak for a few moments. Then the king asked, "What do you think about this elephant? Is this elephant real or just a thought?"

Nagarjuna said, "Sir, the elephant is just a dream."

The king said, "What? Then why were you crying and screaming and shouting and asking me to stop the mad elephant?"

Nagarjuna said, "Sir, that too was part of the dream. Your stopping the elephant is also part of the dream. You can again put the elephant behind me and I assure you I will again scream and shout. But that doesn't prove anything; it simply proves that one dream creates another dream. It does not prove the reality of the elephant. It simply proves that one dream can trigger another dream."

That's how the world continues -- one dream triggering another dream.

This has always been the language of the mystics. But for the first time in the history of man physics also is speaking the same language: Matter exists no more. If you ask them, "Then what exists?" they shrug their shoulders. They say, "Something -- X,Y,Z. We call it'electrons, neurons, protons,' but they are just X,Y,Z -- names given to certain entities nobody has ever seen. Nobody is ever going to see them -- we don't know whether they exist or not. All that we know is that if we accept them our calculations come right. If we don't accept them then it becomes difficult to make our calculations. So they are hypothetical realities. "

Buddha has said God is a hypothetical reality, self is a hypothetical reality. Logically they are needed -- I and thou are needed -- but the need is logical, not existential. Those who have penetrated the subjective reality, they have come to know that all our words, all our logic, all our hypotheses are only arbitrary. And now even physics agrees. The Theory of Relativity is the beginning of a totally new science, the beginning of the meeting of East and West.

You will be surprised to know that Mahavira, the twenty-fourth TEERTHANKARA of the Jainas was the first man in the whole world who talked about the Theory of Relativity, twenty-five centuries before Albert Einstein ever thought about it. Of course, he was talking about the theory of relativity in relation to the subjective world and Einstein focuses the same vision on the objective world, but both have come to one conclusion: that life is more than logic -- far more, immensely more.

But unless you are deeply meditative you will not be able to live that tremendously illogical life because it will drive you mad. If you are not meditative, Mavji Savla, then remain confined to the world of logic, otherwise you will go mad.

In English we have two words, very beautiful, of great significance: one is "breakdown," the other is "breakthrough." Breakdown is when you don't know any meditation and your logic becomes irrelevant. You don't know how to reach to the heart and your head has become absolutely meaningless to you, then there is a breakdown, you go insane. But if you know meditativeness -- meditativeness means the art of transforming the opposites into complementaries -- then there is a breakthrough: you enter into a new world, a new vision, a new perspective.

In a sense you are again mad. That's why Jesus is known as mad. Francis used to call himself mad -- and for all practical purposes he if mad. Buddha and Mahavira... they are all mad in a sense. They are not sane the way you are sane, either they are below you or above you, but one thing is certain: they are somewhere else. If they are below you it is a breakdown. If they are above you it is a breakthrough. Meditation is the art of transforming madness into Buddhahood. Meditation is the art of taking you beyond logic and yet keeping your sanity intact. Meditation is the greatest discovery ever made, and I don't think there is ever going to be another discovery which can surpass meditation.


Next: Chapter 5: Man's is Life's Invention, Question 2


Energy Enhancement                Enlightened Texts               Christianity                Theologia Mystica



Chapter 5






Search Search web