... you are not open and existence is not open to you. When you argue, you assert. Assertion is violence, aggression, and the truth cannot be known by an aggressive mind, the truth cannot be discovered by violence. You can come to know the truth only when you are in love. But love never argues. There is no argument in love, because there is no aggression. And remember, not only was that man a professor...

... question is. So many of you are here but I know the question, because deep down the question is one: the anxiety, the anguish, the meaninglessness, the futility of this whole life - not knowing who you are. But you are filled. Allow me to break this cup. This camp is going to be a destruction, a death. If you are ready to be destroyed something new will come out of it. Every destruction can become a...

... violent: Try to be nonviolent. Then their nonviolence comes out of violence, so their nonviolence is just a facade, just a face to show. Deep down, they are boiling with violence. If your brahmacharya, your celibacy, comes out of too much sexuality, it will be perverted sex, nothing else. So please don't create any conflict. If you have one problem, don't create another; remain with the one, "don't...

... they are not so courageous. They wanted to kill others, be violent with others, cripple others, but they are not so courageous, so their whole violence has turned within. Now they are crippling themselves, torturing themselves, and enjoying it. I am not saying be a masochist; I am simply saying suffering is there, you need not seek for it. Enough suffering is there already, you need no go in search...

... destructive. To create, you need a certain order - not organization but a certain order, a certain awareness, a certain individuality. But for destruction nothing is needed. You can became an instrument of destruction without any qualification. No university degree is needed, no skill, no craft - nothing. Hence, the great appeal of the mob - to attract people. You can become a great mob leader, for the...

... country is independent, the empire that he wanted to destroy is destroyed. Now, what more success was he waiting for? But at this crucial moment he realized that he did not know anything about how the human mind functions. He was a leader of a mob, and a mob is interested only in destruction. Now the question was of creation. The whole dimension of work had changed: the country had to be created. It was...

... psychology. He was talking about non-violence to people who were not people, who were just a mob; and if they were following him as a non-violent leader, the reason was that to follow a violent leader you need guts, because sooner or later you will have to face bullets. To follow a non-violent leader you need nothing; you just need a flag and a good loud voice so you can scream and shout. That was enough...

... new India. But he depended on the wrong type of people, because they were not interested in creativity, they were interested in destruction. So when he was not leading them towards destruction.... Anybody who was ready to lead them to destruction they were ready to follow. So if they were Hindus they were following Hindu leaders, killing Mohammedans, burning mosques. If they happened to be...

... done by the violent mind - whatsoever! Even while striving to be nonviolent, the effort will be done by the violent mind. You are violent, so by trying to be nonviolent you will be violent. In the very effort to be nonviolent, you will try every type of violence. That is why you go to these strivers for nonviolence. They may not be violent with others, but they are with themselves. They are very...

... violent with themselves - murdering themselves. And the more they get mad against themselves, the more they are celebrated. When they become completely mad, suicidal, then the society says, "These are the sages." But they have only transformed the object of violence, nothing else. They were violent with someone else, now they are violent with themselves - but the violence is there. And when...

... violent and you create an ideal of nonviolence. Then you need not go into yourself, into your violence; there is no need. Then this is the only need - to go on thinking about nonviolence, reading about nonviolence, and trying to practice nonviolence. You say to yourself, "Do not touch violence," and you are violent. So you can escape from yourself, you can go to the periphery, but then you...

... condemning the whole world: everyone else is violent, only India is nonviolent. No one seems to be nonviolent here, but the ideal is good for condemning others. It never changes you, but you can condemn others because you have the ideal, the criterion. And whenever you are violent you can rationalize it - your violence is an altogether different thing. These past twenty-five years we have been violent many...

... times, but we have never condemned our violence. We have always defended and rationalized it in beautiful terms. If we are violent in Bengal, in Bangladesh, then we say that it is to help the people there to obtain freedom. If we are violent in Kashmir, it is to help Kashmiris. But you know, all those who are warmongering say the same. If America is violent in Vietnam, it is for "those poor...

... "bad" and your "good" will be coming together. They will merge into one, and you will become one unity. There will be nothing as pure, nothing as impure. Know the reality. "THE PURITY OF OTHER TEACHINGS IS AN IMPURITY TO US:" Tantra says that "What is basic for others is poisonous for us." For example, there are teachings which are based on non-violence. They...

... say violence is bad, non-violence is good. Tantra says that non-violence is non-violence, violence is violence; nothing is good and nothing is bad. There are teachings which are based on celibacy - BRAHMACHARYA. They say that BRAHMACHARYA is good, sex is bad. Tantra says sex is sex, BRAHMACHARYA is BRAHMACHARYA. One is a BRAHMACHARI and one is not. But these are simple facts, no values are attached...

... every cell of the body, every atom of the mind is just part of a long, long succession of habits. They are so deep that we don't even remember from where they came. Now Western psychology has come to discover many, many new things. For example, now they have discovered that whenever you feel violence, your violence is not in the mind alone - it is deep in your teeth and in your nails. So if you...

... suppress violence, your teeth will absorb it and your jaw will become diseased, because animals, whenever violent, use teeth and nails. Our nails belong to animality. our teeth belong to animality - a long animal heritage. So when someone is violent and suppresses it, the teeth become loaded. Now they say that many diseases of the teeth are just because so much violence is suppressed - many diseases of...

... the teeth! So a violent man has a different type of jaw. Just by seeing his jaw you can say that he is violent. A person who has suppressed many. many violent fevers, upheavals, will begin to have a particular type of jaw - the violence will be there. One psychologist, Wilhelm Reich, would just push your teeth by his hands, press your teeth by his hands, and suddenly your whole body would become...

... program. A built-in program has been touched and reactivated." Sometimes it happened, when Reich would push particular spots - and he became aware of them by continuously working for forty years on jaw spots, he became aware that every spot has a particular type of violence hidden in it - so he would push a particular spot, a particular chakra in the jaw, and a particular violence would come out...

... MEN WILL LAY RESPONSIBILITIES ON YOU' said the old man. One thing more before we go deeper into this parable: When your energies ooze out and you are not yet centred, you will certainly become a man of great influence, but your presence will be a violence to others, an aggression. Even if you are non-violent you will do violence to people. The same thing happened in the case of Mahatma Gandhi. He...

... believed in non-violence, but his presence was very violent. All those who lived around him were very much pressed upon. For small things he would press them too much. For small flaws, human flaws, human limitations. he would create much fuss. He would very easily go on a fast; if a disciple did something wrong, he would go on a fast. Now this looks very nonviolent - he was not doing anything to the...

... is very violent; it is better to hit a person with a sword. This is more violent: you are pressing his heart with a subtle sword. In the name of non-violence much violence can be done to people. In the name of love much violence can be done to people. You all know. Parents go on doing violence to their children in the name of love. They say '... because we love you.' They go on making them feel...

... guilty, they go on torturing them in subtle ways, in a thousand and one ways: and they are always doing it for you, for your own good. 'Remember, Tao says: IN ANY WAY, the desire to impress the other, the desire to change the other, the desire to do good to the other, is violence. There should be no desire. And this is the beauty - when you don't desire to help the other, others are helped. And when...

... be just a clothing. If he can be angry also, then his kindness has a depth. There is no need to be angry, there is no necessity - but the capacity must exist. This capacity to incorporate polar opposites needs a different training. A different mind has to be brought into the world. Remember this: all the great sages who have brought non-violence were Kshatriyas they belonged to warrior races...

.... Mahavir, Buddha, all the twenty-four Teerthankers of the Jains, they were Kshatriyas: they belonged to warrior races. This seems absurd. It would be better if. Brahmins were teaching non-violence, but no Brahmin has preached it. No Brahmin has ever preached non- violence. Only Kshatriyas have preached it. Why? And why do Mahavir and Buddha have such a depth into non-violence? They were capable of deep...

... violence. They could move. They really belonged to a violent tribe, a violent type of mind. They were born to it, and then they moved to the other pole. They had a depth. This is strange: if you go and try to find the opposite pole to Mahavir and Buddha, you will find Parasuram - a Brahmin who killed millions of Kshatriyas. It is reported that many times he set about killing all the Kshatriyas in the...

... world. This was a very violent mind, but he came from a non-violent caste. He was a Brahmin. Why? No Kshatriya can be compared to Parasuram in violence. He is unique. The world has not produced another like him again. Mahavir and Buddha, they are Kshatriyas. This is meaningful, significant. The capacity to be the other gives a certain strength. Another example: you might have heard many anecdotes...

... not the place for me." From where did he learn this kind of stupidity? Not from the BHAGAVADGITA, although to convince the Hindus that he is the Mahatma of the Hindus he read the BHAGAVADGITA every morning, every evening ... And the BHAGAVADGITA is one of the most significant philosophies of violence, not of nonviolence. It was perfectly in tune with Adolf Hitler, with Benito Mussolini, with...

... Joseph Stalin, with Mao Tse-tung, but not with any religious person. And it is such a strange thing that not a single man ever asked Mahatma Gandhi in his long life, "Why do you go on calling that BHAGAVADGITA 'my mother'?" It was just a political stunt so the Hindus would remain behind him. But the whole philosophy of the BHAGAVADGITA is of violence. Krishna is teaching war. He is convincing...

... one through the whole BHAGAVADGITA, from the first sentence to the last - of only one single thing, and that is war. He is speaking to Arjuna, his disciple, who wants to escape from war. In fact, Arjuna seems to be more of a Jaina than Krishna, because while Krishna goes on trying to convince him, Arjuna goes on arguing against war, against violence. Finally he says, "I don't see the point...

... that Krishna was a prophet of God, he had to submit unwillingly, reluctantly. This was the book he was reading day and night. He even made a commentary on it, and naturally he was in a difficulty - how to make any sense of nonviolence in a book which is completely based on violence? So he says it is only a metaphor, that the war never did happen. That is the strategy that he takes in his commentary...

... episode of war is just a metaphor: it is war between the good and the bad, it is war between the right and the wrong, it is war between the light and the darkness. It is not a historical thing, hence there is no question of violence. A war between light and darkness is certainly not going to be a bloodshed - neither light nor darkness has any blood. This man, Mahatma Gandhi, admits that three times he...

... unconditionally, and ready to begin the New Man and the new humanity with the freshness of a child. I have been enjoying the fact that there are many people in the world who are capable of going deep into themselves. Their only hope is a self-realized being. It is too late to do anything to prevent the immense destruction that is going to happen. If we can protect only a few genuine human beings, that will be...

... was just to do business, sell things, accumulate money. All their violence became their greed. That is the reason why they are the only people in India who don't have beggars; they are the richest people in India. But this is a kind of sucking the blood of the society. Everything else is being done by somebody else, and the money somehow goes on moving into hands which don't do anything. Mahavira...

... simply thought about his philosophy, but he never thought that this philosophy could not become universal. And that which cannot become universal cannot be true. People will have to cultivate, and certainly plants will have to be cut, crops will have to be cut. This violence cannot be avoided just by not doing it yourself; somebody else is doing it for you. The situation is the same around the world...

... away the recognition, then it is easy to destroy it. And they destroyed it. I had sent a message to the magistrate, saying, "You will be responsible for the destruction. You don't understand that it is a political strategy." After one year, when he came back, he recognized that something strange had happened. The people who destroyed the commune were also angry with the magistrate who had...

...... just one religiousness, a quality, not something organized. The moment organization comes in there is going to be violence, because there will be other organizations in conflict. We need a world of individuals without any organizations. Yes, people who have similar feelings, similar joys, rejoicings, can have gatherings. But there should not be any organizations, hierarchies, bureaucracies. First...

... destruction. Poras - that was the name of the man who ruled on the boundary of India - was really a brave man. His very name "Poras" means a real man, an authentic man. And Alexander, for the first time, was afraid; although he had more armies, he did not have that spiritual quality that Poras had, that meditativeness, that presence. Alexander had heard many stories about Poras: nobody has ever...

... itself. He told the people, "Make him free. Give his kingdom back to him. And we cannot go deeper into India. It is dangerous. If on the frontier this episode happened, what will happen in the interior parts we don't know. We are going back. It is enough that we have conquered." "Surrender" comes from defeating someone in a fight. It still keeps the violence in it. It is obscene...

.... Mahatma Gandhi had five basic principles which are accepted by all the religions of India as five basic principles. But in looking at those basic principles the most important thing to be noted is that they are all negative. Ahimsa, nonviolence - that "non" shows you the negative attitude. In fact they should be concerned with violence, because that is the real problem. When they say ahimsa...

..., nonviolence, they are saying, "We don't want violence, no violence, nonviolence." Asteya, no non-truth; they cannot say simply truth. They have to go search a roundabout way, "no non-truth," to make it negative. But the emphasis becomes on non-truth. Non-truth has to be dropped; not that you have to discover truth. Non-truth will disappear. Aswad - to eat without tasting - "a"...