The first question:

Question 1

AS I COME TO UNDERSTAND MORE DEEPLY HOW COMPLETELY THE MIND HAS BEEN CONDITIONED IT SEEMS TO ME THAT EVEN THE GURU-DISCIPLE RELATIONSHIP IS AN EXPRESSION OF THIS CONDITIONING. FOR MAN TO BE TOTALLY LIBERATED, MUST HE NOT ALSO TRANSCEND THIS TRADITIONAL BELIEF BY LEAPING THROUGH LOVE IN THE WONDER AND MYSTERY OF LIFE ITSELF, BEYOND THE FORM OF GODS OR GURUS? IF MY HEART MAKES A LEAP OF SURRENDER THROUGH A GURU, DOESN'T THAT VERY ACT OF CREATING AN AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF MYSELF BECOME A SUBTLE FORM OF BONDAGE? I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED MY MIND-HEART SEARCH FOR TRUTH. CAN YOU PLEASE GO INTO THIS MORE DEEPLY?

THE master is not a person, the master is a presence. How can you have a relationship with a presence? Either you see it and you dissolve into it, or you don't see it. But there is no possibility of any relationship. There has never been a relationship between the master and the disciple; the word 'relationship' is irrelevant there. It may appear so to the outsider, but the outsider is not in the know of things. The outsider cannot be relied upon, just because he is the outsider -- he does not know things as they really are in the inside.

A disciple knows no relationship with the master, he is simply one with the master. And how can a master know any relationship with the disciple? He is not, he has disappeared -- that's why he is a master. A master is not a person but a presence. And you cannot be related to a presence. The moment you recognize the presence you are dissolved. You merge, you melt, you disappear.

A master is a door, a master is a gesture of the unknown, a master is a beckoning light. But not a person at all. An open door, a voice calling from the wilderness, a provocation, a seduction into the divine, an invitation. But not a person at all.

So the first thing to be understood is: the master-disciple 'relationship' is a misnomer word. It really appears so from the outside, because of course you see the master and the disciple. And naturally, they are together, so they must be related. But it is not togetherness. It is not union, it is unity; they are no more two in their inner beings.

The second thing: you are not supposed to surrender to the master. If you do it, it will be a conditioning and you will miss the whole point. Surrender happens; you find yourself surrendering. The moment you find a presence of the divine on the earth. a presence of the unknown in the body -- when you look into the eyes of a master and you see the open door -- surrender happens. It is not that you do it; if you do it you have missed it. A surrender done is not a surrender at all. Then it is a mind thing; then the mind is conditioned by your doing.

Who is this doer? Mind is the doer. Whether you do or you don't, either way you remain the doer. One person surrenders, tries to surrender, makes efforts to surrender. Another holds himself back, avoids surrender. Both are missing the point.

Surrender is a happening. The disciple simply finds he is melting, he is disappearing. His boundaries are getting blurred, he is becoming cloudy, he is becoming a nebula. Great courage is needed. Surrender cannot be done -- but if you are cowardly you can escape from it, you can prevent it, you may not allow it to happen. So it is not something that the disciple has done. If the disciple has done it then there is a relationship. And all relationships are conditioning.

And remember this too, that a master is not an authority. The master has no authoritarian attitude. He helps -- he is an occasion for growth, an opportunity, not an authority. He simply indicates. A Buddha only points the way. And that way is also not pointed to because the master has a fixed system -- the way is not pointed according to a system, the way is pointed according to you.

Remember this always, that any system of liberation may work once for one individual, because individuals are so unique. Each individual is such a uniqueness -- that's why he is called the individual. There has never been anybody like him, and there will never be again. So no system is really applicable to him.

Then what is a master doing if he is not dishing you out systems? He is simply helping you to grow whosoever you can grow to, whatsoever you can grow to. He is not trying to grow rose flowers. If you are a marigold he helps you to become a marigold, if you are a rose flower he helps you to become a rose flower, if you are a lotus he helps you to become a lotus. He has no prejudice, he has no system; the master simply looks into you. A master is a gardener, he helps your seed to be dropped into the soil. He assures you: 'Don't be afraid.' The master is a gesture of assurance.

Naturally you are afraid, every seed is afraid -- because what is the guarantee that if he dissolves into the soil there will arise a tree and the tree will bloom? A seed will never be able to see it; the seed will be gone. You will be gone; you will never see your Buddhahood. You will never be able to say 'Yes, this is what I was looking for' -- because the one who was looking for it has to dissolve before it can happen. So you are moving into the unknown.

The master is at the most an occasion. Seeing into the master, feeling empathy with the master, feeling love for the master, you are assured: you can take the jump into the unknown. The master is not an authority, he is not giving you orders, he simply points to the moon. The finger is unimportant -- if you cling to the finger then it is your problem; then you have a need to depend.

Authority is created by the need to depend. The master is not authoritative, but the disciple may be in search of authority -- then he will create the authority. He will create here, he will create there, he will find some way somewhere. The father, the mother, the wife, the husband -- you can create your authority anywhere -- in a book. You can create an authority even with a person who goes on denying authority.

For example, J Krishnamurti. Those who want to depend, they depend on J Krishnamurti too. He may say 'I am not an authority, and there is no need for any authority, there is no need for any master' -- but still there are followers, and very adamant followers. That is your need; you will fulfill it somewhere or somewhere else. But a master is not an authority. A master does not enforce any structure on you, he does not give you any discipline; he only gives you eyes to see your path. He gives you a clarity -- not particular instructions but just a clarity. He hits you hard on the head, he makes you alert.

It happened in a house, in the middle of the night the house caught fire. The whole house was burning, and the master of the house was fast asleep, drunk. Everybody escaped except the master. Then the neighbors realized that he would not be able to come out because he was so drunk -- he was always drunk in the night. So a few people rushed in -- it was risky -- and they started dragging him out. But he was drunk and fast asleep and he was heavy and it was difficult to take him out of the window. And that was the only possible way to take him out -- the door was burning. They tried from one window, they tried from another window, and it was becoming more and more difficult.

Then one wise old man said 'Hit him hard on the head! Wake him. Then he will find the way to get out; then we need not worry.' And they hit him hard on the head and he opened his eyes and they all jumped from the window and he also jumped from the window.

 

A master simply hits you HARD to make you aware. Then your awareness will do everything. He simply helps you to come out of your sleep, out of your somnambulism. He is not an authority -- he does not say 'Go right and then move left and then...' A master never gives particular details; he cannot, in the very nature of things -- because THIS type of disciple has never been there before; nobody knows into what kind of flower he is going to grow, what his destiny is.

And if you find somebody giving you particular instructions, avoid him. Then he is not a master. Then escape from him, he will destroy you -- he has a certain image, he will create that image in you. He does not care about you, he does not love you, he has no compassion. He has a certain idea that he wants to implant: you are just a victim, you are just an opportunity for him to work out whether his idea, his ideal, can become a reality or not. You are just a canvas and he wants to paint HIS picture on you, you are just a block of stone and he wants to sculpt a statue that he is carrying in HIS head. Then he is not a master.

A master simply listens to you. Watches you, observes you, loves you, permeates you, envelops you. And slowly slowly starts helping you to be yourself. A master is not an authority. And the master in fact cannot be an authority, because he does not give you answers. He simply helps you to understand your question. He makes your question profound, he gives depth to your question.

The real answer does not put an end to the question but to the questioner. A real master does not put an end to your questions, he puts an end to you. He kills you. He kills you so that you can be that which you are destined to be.

Now listen to the question again. The questioner must be a newcomer here: Len Shemin. AS I COME TO UNDERSTAND MORE DEEPLY HOW COMPLETELY THE MIND HAS BEEN CONDITIONED...

Who is this one who has come to understand profoundly and deeply? Is it not the same mind? The dog trying to catch its own tail! What is profound in it? If you have understood profoundly you should not have asked the question. If you have seen that you are separate from the mind that is conditioned then there is no questioning.

No, this is not your understanding, this is knowledge. You must have gathered it from people like J Krishnamurti and others. This is not your understanding. Otherwise the problem is solved. And if this is your understanding -- that a master will create an authority, that the relationship between a disciple and a master will again be a new kind of conditioning -- then why are you asking me the question? Because this will create an authority.

You say: CAN YOU PLEASE GO INTO THIS MORE DEEPLY?

Why do you need me to go into it more deeply? If I go more deeply into it, it will be conditioning you. How can my answer have any importance to you if you have understood that all answers from the outside are conditioning? This will be an answer from the outside. You should not ask such a question.

But the question has arisen. And I trust more in the question than what you say in it. It shows that you have been thinking about it, reading about it -- but this is not your own meditative understanding.

You say: AS I COME TO UNDERSTAND MORE DEEPLY...

Understanding is a totally different phenomenon than knowledge. Understanding transforms your being -- in understanding, the question is finished. And remember, understanding is never more and less. You cannot say 'As I understand more deeply' -- understanding is depth; you cannot use the word 'more'. Knowledge is shallowness, understanding is depth. To say 'a deep understanding' is to repeat the same thing; it is tautology, because 'depth' means the same as 'understanding'.

Either you see or you don't; there are no degrees between the two. There is no quantitative difference between two understandings. Knowledge and understanding -- yes, there is a difference, an immense difference; they don't exist on the same plane. Knowledge can be more or less, because knowledge is quantity; you can have more knowledge, you can have less knowledge. You can accumulate, you can go on accumulating, you can learn more, you will have more.

But understanding is simply understanding. It is sheer understanding, there are no degrees in it. The moment you understand, you simply understand and the matter is closed. But we go on calling our knowledge understanding.

AS I COME TO UNDERSTAND MORE DEEPLY HOW COMPLETELY THE MIND HAS BEEN CONDITIONED...

And this is the mind again, because all knowledge is accumulated through the mind. Understanding arises in the no-mind. Knowledge is accumulated in the mind, it is the mind trying to be clever. And this mind can be fool you so immensely.

Now, there are people who go on listening to 1 Krishnamurti for years -- I know people who have listened to him for thirty years, forty years. And he goes on repeating the same thing, he has a single theme. He is a very very consistent man; he never contradicts, he is very logical. And he moves in one dimension -- a one-track mind. Now what are these people doing listening to him for forty years? They are accumulating knowledge. They start forgetting, then they go to listen to him again, then he reminds them again. The memory is deepening -- not understanding.

And after forty years of listening, they are in the same situation. Nothing has changed, their being has not been touched by it. But they become very very egotistic -- rather than coming to a surrender they become very very egotistic. And remember the difference between these two words 'egoist' and 'egotist'. An egoist is one who believes in the ego, and the egotist is one who practices it and is true to his belief.

People listening to I Krishnamurti become very egotistic. In fact their joy in listening to Krishnamurti is of the ego. It feels very good that you have utter freedom, that you are liberated, that you need not surrender to anybody, that you need not bow down to anybody, that you need not pray, that you need not meditate -- that just by listening or just by thinking, you will become enlightened. It feels very good, because there is no torture of growth, no pain of growth. And the greatest pain is to surrender -- that is avoided. The ego becomes more and more subtle and feels very secure.

But joy is not there. Playfulness is not there. You will not find fragrance around these people -- because the more the ego settles and becomes confident about itself, the less is the possibility of its disappearing. And only in the disappearance of the ego comes the fragrance. Only when you die are you reborn.

You say: AS I COME TO UNDERSTAND MORE DEEPLY HOW COMPLETELY THE MIND HAS BEEN CONDITIONED IT SEEMS TO ME THAT EVEN THE GURU-DISCIPLE RELATIONSHIP IS AN EXPRESSION OF THIS CONDITIONING.

Have you ever been in a guru-disciple relationship? Have you ever been on the inside of it? Without being an insider you will not be able to know anything about it. It is as if you are talking about light and you are a blind man and you have never seen light. You are talking about music and you are deaf and you have never heard any sound. And because you have never heard any sound you have never heard any silence either -- because to hear silence, ears are as much needed as they are needed to hear sound.

Don't carry on the idea that a deaf person is always in silence. No, not at all; he knows nothing of silence, he cannot know anything of silence. Don't go on carrying the idea that the blind man remains always in darkness. He cannot know anything of darkness, because to see darkness you need eyes as much as you need eyes for light. Both are experiences of the eye -- light and darkness. The man who is blind cannot say anything about light, he cannot even say anything about darkness.

Have you ever been in the guru-disciple relationship? Only then will you be able understand it, what it is. It is an experience, an incredible experience -- but one has to go into it, into it totally. One has to abandon oneself into it utterly, one has to be drunk, only then does the taste arise.

Now, Krishnamurti is against the masters. And the reason is that he was brought up by some very authoritarian people. Not masters -- teachers maybe, but not masters. He was brought up the theosophists and they were bent upon making a messiah out of him. They wanted to make a world teacher, and they forced him into that pattern. Never before was a man so much tortured and forced into a certain mound.

Buddha's messiah-hood was a natural growth of his own search. Christ became Christ on his own accord. In fact just the opposite has been the case before -- a Buddha has to fight to declare that he is the messiah. Nobody was willing to accept him; people were denying, people were rejecting, as always. They crucified Jesus because he declared himself the Christ.

It happened in just the opposite order with Krishnamurti. He had no idea what it means to be a Christ or a Buddha. And these foolish theosophists, Leadbeater and Annie Besant and the lot, they were all trying to make a messiah out of him, they were after manufacturing a messiah. They really disciplined him so much -- everything was watched, he was never allowed any freedom, he was constantly accompanied. They decided what clothes he should wear and when he should go to bed and when he should get out of bed and what prayers to do -- early in the morning, three o'clock, a small child...

They caught hold of him when he was only nine and they started torturing the child. Not only that, they even forced him to write books. THEY were writing those books. Krishnamurti does not even remember when he wrote the book, the famous book, AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER. He does not remember having written it at all. Just a nine-year-old child, how could he write that book? But these people wanted to prove that he was a born messiah, that he had come from the other world. They forced a book in his name.

And instructions were coming from the high quarters, from masters who roam in the sky, spirits -- Master K H and others -- and letters were arriving. And these people were making those letters too; never before in the whole history of religion has such a forgery been done. They did it to impress this small child -- they did tricks, they managed strategies.

Krishnamurti would be sitting with closed eyes and a letter would drop from the roof. Now, a nine-year-old child naturally trusts and believes. And somebody would be hiding on the roof -- those people were even caught and brought to the court. And the letters were written and those letters would fall in his lap, and he was being instructed from on high.

Just think of the abnormal situation in which he was brought up. He was not allowed to move with any woman, or if he was allowed he was allowed to move only with very aged women with whom he could only have a relationship of son and mother. Even then there were suspicions. He was allowed to move with a very old woman but the old woman fell in love with the boy. The boy was really beautiful -- it was just a motherly love but very passionate. And then the relationship was broken by the theosophists. They were afraid -- they did not want him to get into any human relationship, he had to be purely superhuman.

Food was to be decided by them. He could not go to a movie, he could not play with other boys; that was not right for a messiah. He had to be superhuman. They enforced inhuman standards upon him in order to make him superhuman.

Naturally, the day he became strong enough, he revolted. When he was twenty-five he revolted. He got fed-up with the whole nonsense of becoming a world teacher. He simply declared: 'I am not a teacher and I am not a messiah.'

That conditioning still lingers somewhere around his personality. He is not yet free of those ugly theosophists, he is still living that nightmare. That's why he is against the masters. He has never been with a master, he was with these people who were not masters at all. Cunning frauds, charlatans, they wanted to exploit the whole world through Krishnamurti. They wanted to remain behind him and manipulate him in every way. It was a great conspiracy against humanity, and it is good that he revolted.

But I think it was too much and he cannot forget it and he cannot forgive them. He is against masters, naturally -- I can understand. If I had been in his situation I would have been against the masters.

I would like to ask you: Have you ever been in relationship with a master, which is not a relationship at all? Have you ever dipped into the being of a master? Have you for even a single moment entered the door of a master? Then you will not ask this question, because then all those doubts will immediately disappear, instantly disappear. You will not say that THE GURU-DISCIPLE RELATIONSHIP IS AN EXPRESSION OF THIS CONDITIONING. If it is a relationship and a conditioning, it is not a guru-disciple relationship.

FOR MAN TO BE TOTALLY LIBERATED, MUST HE NOT ALSO TRANSCEND THIS TRADITIONAL BELIEF...?

Yes, man has to transcend all beliefs -- but to be with a master is not traditional and is not a belief. It is very alive; it is not traditional. What is traditional about me and you and your being with me? What is traditional? Can there be anything more anti-traditional? Where is there any belief in it?

Yes, trust is there, but not belief. Belief is a substitute: one goes on deceiving oneself with belief and thinks that one has trust. Trust is a totally different phenomenon. Belief is of the head, trust is of the heart. Belief is a thought, trust is a feeling. If you feel me, you trust me. If you only intellectually understand me, then belief will be created. Belief makes you a student, not a disciple, and whoever you get that belief and knowledge from becomes a teacher, not a master. That's the difference between a teacher-and-student and a master-and-disciple relationship.

A master does not teach you, he simply makes his being available to you and hopes that you will also do the same. When these two beings are available to each other, miracles start happening.

'Liberation' is a beautiful word but very much misused. What do you mean by 'liberation'? You say: FOR A MAN TO BE TOTALLY LIBERATED.... What do you mean by 'total liberation'? You must be having some idea somewhere that 'I will be liberated one day, but I will remain after liberation.'

You don't understand at all. Liberation is not of the 'I' but from the 'I'. You are to be liberated from yourself. In liberation you will not find yourself at all; you will be gone for ever. The liberation will not be your liberation, it will be liberation only because you will not be there. Liberation is from you; it is not yours.

Now, it will be very difficult, almost impossible, to do it on your own. Something has to penetrate you from the beyond -- only that can take you out of yourself. For example, you go to sleep, you are fast asleep and the alarm goes off. That alarm comes from the outside into your sleep and disturbs your sleep: your eyes open up.

Gurdjieff used to say: Man is a prisoner, and he has lived in the prison so long that he has completely forgotten that he is a prisoner. And the prison is so big that you cannot feel it, because you never see the boundary. The boundaries are very subtle -- the walls ARE there but they are very subtle and transparent, made of pure glass, crystal glass. And you have lived in the prison so long that you think this is your home, this is your life. this is how life is supposed to be. Unless somebody comes from the outside and says 'This is a prison, and I know what freedom is' even the desire to be free will not arise in you. That is the chain.

A master is one who is outside the prison, is one who is awake. He can create devices, occasions, for you to be awake. He can create some disturbance in your sleep.

All these meditations that you are doing here are nothing but efforts to disturb your sleep -- to shake you up, to shock you so deeply that it goes beyond your shock absorbers and reaches you. To shout -- a master goes on shouting. Jesus said: Go on the housetops and shout as loudly as you can.

A master is one who shouts loudly. There are many shock absorbers around your you have buffers which absorb anything that comes from the outside. The alarm won't work if your ears are closed; if you are using ear-plugs the alarm won't reach you. And. just to be safe, people have created many shock absorbers, many buffers around them. Otherwise life will be miserable, very miserable. There are so many shocks happening every moment that you cannot allow them to reach to you. To prevent the bad you have created the buffer -- but it prevents the good too. To prevent the enemy you have closed the door and locked it and bolted it. But now it prevents the friend too.

Unless some ray from the beyond enters your being, unless you taste something of the transcendental, even the desire to be liberated will not be there. A master does not give you liberation, he creates a passionate desire for liberation. He makes you aflame with an unknown passion that you have never known before, never felt t fore.

Just think of a world where Buddha never existed. where Christ never walked, where Kabir never sang. Just drop a hundred names from human history and you would be in a totally different situation. You would not be thinking of liberation at all; you would not be thinking of freedom, of moksha, of nirvana. It is because of these few people who go on shouting in spite of you, whether you hear or not -- it is because of these people that the word 'freedom' has some meaning, that the word liberation' strikes you.

It is good that one wants to be totally liberated -- one has to go beyond all beliefs and one has to go beyond all relationships. But the relationship between a master and a disciple is not a relationship and it is not a belief. And one has to go beyond all tradition -- but it is not tradition at all. Tradition exists when you go on following a dead master.

For example, if you are a Christian you are traditional. But the people who moved with Jesus when he was alive were not traditional. The Jews were traditional, they were following Moses or Abraham; they were traditional. But the few people who were moving with Jesus and risking their life, they were not traditional. Now Christians are traditional. My sannyasins are not traditional; when I am gone they will be traditional.

Tradition exists between a dead guru and an alive disciple. With an alive master and an alive disciple, how can tradition exist? There is no tradition, the relationship is immediate. It is not a belief, it is trust.