The other day you said that sex for reproduction is sinful. I have also read your words saying that the greatest creative act of a woman is in producing a child, and that there is a vast difference between a mother and a woman.
If this is so, then is there sin in participating in sex and in love in the hope of creating a child and experiencing the joy of creation and the renewing energy of the universe?
Satdharma, one thing has always to be remembered about me: never bring in what I have said before. I live only now and here, so whatsoever I say now is the truth; there is no guarantee about it for tomorrow. I live absolutely in the moment, so don't bring the past in and don't bring the future in either.
Be with me totally immersed in this moment. To be in this moment without any hangovers from the past, without any dreams about the future is the only way to be with me -- to be in communion. Go on dying to the past; that's the only way to remain alive.
So please never quote me, what I have said before, because the context changes every moment. Much water has gone down the Ganges since I made the statement that the greatest creative act of a woman is in producing a child. I was not talking at that time to my own people; I was talking to the common masses, to the crowd.
Now I am talking to my own people there is no need for any kind of rationalization. I can give you the truth in its utter nudity, and the truth is beautiful only in its utter nudity.
Yes, up to nowthe greatest creative act of the woman has been giving birth to a child, but it is not going to be so any more.
The earth was not so populated in the past; it was a need, a great need, and the woman fulfilled it. But now she has to grow new dimensions of creativity, and only then will she be able to be equal to man. Otherwise, she has been in the past only a factory and man has used her only to create more children. Having more children was economically beneficial, it was business, because they help you in every possible way; they were not a burden in the past.
In poor countries still the old idea continues that the more children you have the better off you will be economically. In the past it was true -- it is absolutely false today. Mohammed married nine women and he allowed Mohammedans to marry four women, simply to create more Mohammedans, because there was constant war between the Mohammedans and the non-Mohammedans and it was a question of power -- the politics of numbers. Whoever was more powerful was going to win, and power belonged to numbers. Now it is simple arithmetic: if you marry nine women to a single man, a single man can produce nine children in a year. But do just vice versa -- marry one woman to nine men -- and you may not even have one child. They will mess around...they may even kill the woman!
So it was economically, politically significant that men should marry more women, and people were stealing women from each other's tribes. It was more significant to steal a woman than a man because man is not so reproductive; one man is enough to serve many women and one man can produce many children.
But now the whole thing has changed -- the world is overpopulated.
Now the need of the day is to divert women's creativity into new dimensions: into poetry, into literature, into painting, into music, into architecture, into sculpture, into dancing. She should be allowed now the whole spectrum of creativity. To create a child now is dangerous. To overpopulate the earth now is suicidal; already we are more than are needed.
In Cairo, a city which is suffering from a severe housing shortage, a man was drowning in the river Nile. He was screaming for help, and a passer-by walking across the bridge heard him and called out to the distressed man: "What's your name?"
"Never mind my name!" gasped the drowning man. "Just save me!"
"First your name, please!" insisted the man on the bridge.
"Mr. Hussein," blubbered the struggling unfortunate before he went under for the second time.
"Quick," urged the man on the bridge, "now your address!"
"Forty-nine Kasr el Nil Street," gasped the man with his last breath.
Hearing this, without hesitation the man on the bridge rushed off to the address mentioned, leaving the poor man to drown in the river. He located the owner of the apartment building and told him excitedly: "There's a vacant apartment in your house -- can I rent it?"
"Gone already," mumbled the apartment owner. "Sorry, but I just let it to the guy who pushed him in!"
Now giving birth to children is not creative, it is destructive! The whole context has changed and we have to learn new ways to live in a new context. And the woman could not create great poetry, great music, great art, great literature; she could not be a scientist, a mystic -- she could not do anything, because she was constantly pregnant in the past. She was undernourished, tortured by so many children, dozens of children, always pregnant, sick. She had not yet lived totally -- she had not time enough to live.
For the first time it is possible through contraceptives and birth control methods and sterilization that the woman can free herself from getting pregnant unnecessarily, carrying the long, long burden of giving birth to children, then raising them up. Her energies can be freed. Now she can also become a Buddha, a Zarathustra, a Jesus, a Krishna. Now she can also create like Mozart, Wagner, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Kalidas, Rabindranath, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Gorky, Dostoevsky.
And my feeling is: once the energies of the women are freed totally from giving birth to children she may be able to create greater Buddhas. Why? -- Because she is a far more creative force than man. But her creativity has remained confined to giving birth to children, and that is not much of a creativity -- it is just biological. Animals are doing it perfectly well, so what is great about it?
Giving birth to a child is not anything conscious, deliberate, meditative.
You are just being used by nature, by biology as a means to propagate the race, the species.
That's why there is a certain undercurrent of guilt in everybody, even without the priest. The priest has used it, exploited it, but he has not really created it. There is an underlying guilt about sex; priests have magnified it very much because it became a source of great exploitation for them. They could dominate man more powerfully by making him feel guilty. But there must be a cause within man himself, otherwise without any background inside him no guilt can be imposed upon him. Man feels it deep down in a subtle way, in an unconscious way -- he knows. It is vague, hidden behind layers of mist, but it is there: that sex is not something conscious, it is unconscious, that it is mechanical, that you are being used as a means, that you are not the master, that it is a biological force, that it is not really you who are wanting a woman or a man, it is just the hormones.
That's why we can change a man into a woman -- and a man can be changed into a woman or a woman into a man just by changing a few of their glands. So that's what sex is all about -- a few glands. Once your hormonal system is changed, a man becomes a woman, a woman becomes a man, there is not much difference. They are two sides of the same biology. And when you know that you are being used and you find yourself incapable of getting rid of this slavery, a guilt arises that you are not being man enough, that you are not really a master, you are a slave. Hence we hide sex.
For thousands of years man has been making love in darkness, in the night, behind the doors, for the simple reason that it looks so ridiculous making love under the sky, in the sun...and people watching. You will feel so embarrassed, you will look so ugly. Even in the darkness the woman has more sense of grace -- she immediately closes her eyes; while making love she never opens her eyes. Even in darkness she is afraid to see the face of the man because he looks so animal-like. He is like an animal!
Sex is an animal act. That's what I mean when I say that sex for reproduction is sinful; the word "sin" is not used in any moralistic sense. I am simply saying it is sinful because it is unconscious, unmeditative. You are not doing it, you are forced to do it by some unconscious forces.
In fact, the word "sin" is beautiful; it comes from a root which means "forgetfulness." You may not be able to see the connection between forgetfulness and sin, but there is a connection: forgetfulness means unawareness, unconsciousness.
The sex act in itself is so animal that for centuries we have been hiding it, repressing it, covering it in every possible way.
A middle-aged Australian couple went on a boat trip to England. They did not participate in the social activities each night, but one evening the wife went to bed and the man joined in one of the games. A member of the audience was chosen at random to speak on a subject pulled out of a hat.
The Australian man was chosen, and he was given the subject "sex" to speak about for five minutes. He really got into it and the audience roared with laughter.
When he returned to his cabin, his wife sleepily asked what he had been doing. He told her everything, except that the subject for his talk was sex -- he told her it was sailing.
The next day the wife was stopped by a buxom young woman who said: "Your husband's speech last night was hilarious and full of unusual insights!"
The wife looked puzzled and said: "That's strange...in his whole life he has only done it twice; the first time he got seasick, and the second time his hat blew off!"
We don't even want to mention the word! Even the word is avoided. We have other words for it: "making love...." Now making love is not possible at all; love is not something that you can make or manufacture or do. Sex can be done -- it is just an activity -- but love is far deeper. But we want to avoid the word "sex"; it reminds us of our animality.
That's what I meant when I said sex for reproduction is sinful. One: now the earth needs no more people. If we are bent upon making a hell out of this earth then it is okay -- then go on reproducing. Then listen to the Pope and Mother Teresa...Ajai Krishna Lakhanpal...mind you, I have mentioned her again -- just for your sake, for your peace of mind. Then listen to all these stupid guys who are telling you to avoid contraceptives, avoid birth control, avoid sterilization, because they are irreligious acts; avoid abortion because that is very immoral. But if you avoid abortion, avoid contraceptives, avoid sterilization, you will be responsible for a global suicide and that will be real violence -- and we are approaching closer to it every day. That is the first reason I say that sex for reproduction's sake is sinful.
But the Pope, Mahatma Gandhi, and the so-called other saints, they say sex is moral only if you are indulging in it for reproductive reasons. In fact they are telling you sex is good only if it is animal, because animals enter into sex only for reproductive reasons. That's why no animal goes into sex all the year around; it is man's dignity, it is man's freedom -- it is only man who has the capacity to make sexual contacts all the year round. Animals are living in a kind of bondage: there are seasons, their sex is seasonal, and after the season is over their sex is over -- their sex life is finished. Then they don't have any interest in the other.
That's why no family or any kind of intimacy has arisen in animals; it is seasonal. Once in a while they are possessed by natural forces to reproduce. When the time is good and the climate is good for their children to grow up they go into sex, otherwise they forget all about it. They are saints according to the Polack Pope and Mahatma Gandhi -- they are the real moral people!
To me, going into sex for reproductive reasons is sinful because it is animal, it is unconscious, it is biological.
Going into sex for the sheer joy of sharing energy with anyone you are intimate with...it is a way of communing energy to energy, heart to heart. It is melting and merging into each other...for no other purpose. If a purpose is there -- that you want to create a child -- then it is business. If there is no purpose, if it is purposeless fun, then only does it have beauty, and then it does not create any bondage. And you are getting free of biology, you are rising higher than biology, you are going above the animals, you are reaching the peaks of humanity.
So to me sex is beautiful only when it is non-purposive, when it is just playfulness, when you are not in it for any other ends, when to be in communion with a woman or a man just for the sheer joy of it is enough. Then you have transcended the lower animal life and you have entered into a higher dimension. And remember, reproduction is not creation. Once the woman is freed from the unnecessary burden of reproduction she will be able to create more powerfully than any man, because if she can give birth to a child why can't she give birth to beautiful music? But it has not been possible up to now, and man has been trying to rationalize....
Sigmund Freud says that man creates music, art, poetry, just to compensate for his inferiority complex.
Because he cannot produce children, he cannot carry children in a womb, he cannot be a mother, he finds other ways to be a mother. He becomes a mother to a painting, to a statue, to the Taj Mahal, to Ajanta, Ellora, to Khajuraho. He tries to mother in some way or other so that he can compensate and he can show to the woman: "You are not the only one who can be pregnant -- I can also be pregnant with great ideas."
Sigmund Freud has a great insight there, but the insight is only half; the other half he has not talked about at all. He is as much a male chauvinistic pig as anybody else! The other half has also to be told. The other half is that if the woman is freed...and she can be freed now, almost completely freed. Only a few women should be allowed to have children; then we can have a better humanity. And as far as children are concerned the consideration should not be that it has to be from your husband, that it has to be from your wife. That is stupidity -- we have to get off it. Where children are concerned, then your child should be the best possible.
When you want to have a beautiful suit made you don't think: "It should be made only by my wife" -- you search for the best tailor. When you want your car to be fixed you don't think: "It has to be fixed by my husband" -- you search for the best German mechanic!
And that you are already doing as far as animals are concerned. English bulls are being imported into India for Indian holy cows! We are far more scientific about that -- it is far better. Indian bulls are exhausted, tired. When you can get English bulls, why bother about Indian bulls? Why torture them more? And better cows and better bulls can be produced easily by cross-breeding. Man has to be scientific about himself too.
In the future I predict it is going to happen, because I trust in the intelligence of humanity, I have not lost hope. I am not a pessimist, I am absolutely optimistic. This is going to happen, this has to happen, this is inevitable, that one day a father will brag: "For my child I have got the life cells from Albert Einstein. My child is no ordinary child: the male part comes from Albert Einstein, the female part comes from Marilyn Monroe! It is my child, no ordinary child!" And I can see the point: your child should be the best.
Why should one insist that the female part of the child has to come from your wife -- for what? -- and the male part has to come from you? When you can get better male chromosomes, female chromosomes, when you can get better life cells, healthier ones, more intelligent, then it is perfectly compassionate, loving, that you should manage it.
Sooner or later children can be produced in the labs; they have already succeeded in having test-tube babies. The woman need not carry the child in the womb for nine months; we can create a better womb in the laboratory, we can create better children through scientific methodology -- and the woman can be completely freed from the burden of remaining pregnant. And once her energies are released she will be able to be creative. But I think man is afraid of her creativity. She can certainly surpass man's creativity; naturally she is more endowed with creativity.
I am all for creativity but remember, reproduction is not creativity; they are not synonymous.
Creativity is something conscious, reproduction is unconscious. Creativity is meditative, reproduction has nothing to do with meditation at all.
But man has just been using the woman almost like cattle. He has been using the woman to raise his children; he has been using the woman just as a farm. That's exactly the meaning of the word "husband": husband means "the farmer." Agriculture means husbandry: the wife is the field and the husband is the farmer, and the wife's only function is to give a good crop every year.
The woman can never be liberated unless this is understood: that she has to stop this past pattern. And man has been telling her: "You are great because you give birth to children!" This is a rationalization, this is a consolation. Beware of such tricks. Man has exploited woman in every possible way and it is time to finish this exploitation.
A luxury cruise was proving to be very boring. One evening, just to liven things up a little, a British gentleman called everybody together in the Grand Saloon to propose a game.
"All the gentlemen are to line up on one side of the room and all the ladies on the other. When I clap my hands, everybody has to undress as quickly as possible. When I clap my hands a second time, the gentlemen have to race across the room and rape the ladies as quickly as possible. The winner of the game is the man who finishes first. And the prize: a kiss from one of our lovely lady passengers!"
What a great idea! But man has been practicing this idea down the ages, in different forms.
You ask me, Satdharma: "The other day you said that sex for reproduction is sinful."
Yes, absolutely sinful.
You also ask: "I have also read your words saying that the greatest creative act of a woman is in producing a child...."
I contradict those words!
"...and that there is a vast difference between a mother and a woman."
Certainly there is a vast difference between a mother and a woman. A mother is one who paints, creates poetry, music, art. Just giving birth to a child, any woman can do it; that is nothing of much value. To mother is a totally different phenomenon. Man can be a mother, woman can be a mother; the moment you are creative you are a mother.
And you ask: "If this is so, then is there sin in participating in sex and in love in the hope of creating a child and experiencing the joy of creation...?"
I don't think anybody has ever experienced the joy of creation by making a woman pregnant. In the first place you don't know whether you have made the woman pregnant or not, so how can you experience the joy of creation? After two, three months you will be able to experience the joy -- when it is discovered that the poor woman is pregnant. Do you think you know exactly at the time that you are enjoying the bliss of being creative? Don't be foolish, Satdharma. Be a little sensible, a little intelligent.
"...and the renewing energy of the universe?"
If you are playful then certainly you are renewing the energy of the universe. Every play, every fun, every laughter, every cheer, every dance, every love, renews the energy of the universe -- but not by making a poor woman pregnant. It is very unjust really of nature; nature is not just.
If I were to make the creation again, then I would decide it in this way: one time the man will become pregnant, one time the woman will become pregnant and then you will know how much joy there is in being pregnant. Nine months carrying the child in the womb, and all kinds of children...they kick around and they do all kinds of things. They even affect your moods, your thoughts, your feelings; they overshadow you. And you are continuously sick, being nauseous, vomiting; you cannot eat, you cannot rest, and all kinds of nightmares...just think, for nine months! And then the child is born at last -- that too is painful -- and then the upbringing of the child which is the most painful thing in the world.
It is very easy for man to say to the woman: "This is great joy and we are renewing the energy of the universe!"
The woman has simply listened up to now, because she has been totally dependent on man she has had to listen to whatsoever nonsense he says. Just try one night to sleep with your child in the bed: either you will kill the child or you will commit suicide. As far as I am concerned I know perfectly well I cannot sleep in the same room where a child is sleeping, because children have strange ideas: in the day they will sleep and in the night they will create trouble!
It is the woman who has somehow tolerated it; man cannot tolerate that. Just try one day: let the woman go for a holiday and manage your twelve children -- and the next day you will have to visit the psychoanalyst. They will drive you crazy!
And, Satdharma, you are calling it: "...experiencing the joy of creation and the renewing energy of the universe."
You can renew the energy of the universe by being playful. Love just has to be fun -- it has been much too serious. And out of seriousness jealousy has arisen, out of seriousness continuous nagging by the woman has arisen; out of seriousness you are continuously watching the woman -- whether she is mixing with somebody else...talking to whom? Was she laughing with the neighbor? What was she doing the whole day when you were at the office? This seriousness has destroyed all joy; it has not renewed the energy of the universe, it has simply destroyed the very energy of the universe.
Men can also be like flowers. Certainly you can enhance the energy of the universe, but the way you have behaved up to now this has not been the case.
Four friends meet one winter's evening by the fire and start talking about their adventures.
"Once I has hunting on a mountain alone," says one. "The night was so silent I could not sleep because of the noise of my beard growing!"
"That's nothing!" replies the second one. "I was hunting with a friend up north on the mountain. It was so cold that when we spoke our words would become ice. We had to melt them on the fire to hear what we were saying!"
"Ah, that's nothing!" boasts the third. "Just last month my stomach had to be operated upon because of my sex life!"
"Your sex life?!" the others exclaim in wonder.
"Yes, you see, day after day I have licked and sucked so many women that I had an enormous lump of hairs in my stomach!"
After a few moments of silence the fourth guy says: "Well, your experiences are just games compared to what has happened to me! Years ago with five other friends I crossed Canada, an unexplored country at that time, and we were attacked by wild Indians. One by one all my friends were killed until only I remained alive -- a lone figure surrounded by corpses. Then after a bloody fight...."
"What happened?" ask the others in awe.
"The only thing that could have happened -- I was killed. And here I am in spirit!"
Love has to be more in the spirit than in the body; it has to become a little more unearthly. It has to become more fun. It has to become more part of the cosmic joke that the universe is.
Satdharma, you are too serious about it -- drop your seriousness. Seriousness is irreligious, immoral! Laughter is prayerful. Make your love-life full of laughter -- and for the first time this is possible. It was not possible in the past because no scientific technology was available; we had to wait for scientific technology. But now scientific technology is available, only the mind of man is not yet ready to be scientific; it is still superstitious.
In science we are living in the twentieth century, and as far as our superstitions are concerned we are living three thousand years back. We are almost like Mohenjodaro. In Pakistan, the most ancient civilization that has been excavated up to now is that of Mohenjodaro, a city that has been discovered. The city was destroyed at least seven times, and the city must have been at one of the peaks of civilization because seven layers have been discovered. Seven times the city flourished and was destroyed -- maybe some natural calamity, maybe some war, earthquake, flood; nothing can be determined now. One thing is certain: that seven times the city flourished, seven times it was destroyed; again it flourished on top of the old city, again it was destroyed.
Mohenjodaro, the word itself, simply means murdon ka teela -- "a hillock of the dead." It is a hillock, a seven-layered hillock, and millions of dead people are buried there. Mohenjodaro is seven thousand years old -- your superstitions are also that old. A statue of a naked man has been found in Mohenjodaro and Jainas think: "That belongs to our religion" -- of course: they worship naked teerthankaras, so Jainism is seven thousand years old. One of the statues of a brahmin priest has been discovered with the thread that brahmins wear around their necks -- yagno paveet -- so they claim that their culture and religion are seven thousand years old.
We are living in the past as far as our psychology is concerned and we have not gone beyond Mohenjodaro, that hillock of the dead. Our psychology is full of corpses.
Scientifically we are in the twentieth century, psychologically we are lagging far behind. And this is one of the causes of misery on the earth, of poverty on the earth, of illness on the earth, of sadness. This whole sadness and misery can disappear once we decide to be contemporary as far as psychology is concerned; in fact, psychology should be a little ahead of scientific technology.
And that's my whole effort here. My sannyasins have to be psychologically ahead of the time, psychologically far more developed than the scientific technology is. Only then can you use it, otherwise you are bound to misuse it. Now science has made possible everything which can transform the earth into a paradise. There is no need to look for a paradise in the afterlife -- it can happen now and here. And for the first time it is possible: it can happen now; you need not wait for it any more.
This is my whole problem: I am talking of a religion, of a philosophy, of a metaphysics, which is absolutely contemporary or a little bit ahead; and the people who are your saints, your mahatmas, your popes, they are living in the dead past. The gap is big, unbridgeable. And of course, I cannot compromise because that would be suicidal. They have to compromise! They have to come to the twentieth century, I cannot go back; that is not possible. And you have to be ready to fight for the present against the past.
My sannyasins have to be rebels against the past -- for a new present, for a new future. We are very close to the sunrise. Just a little effort and the earth can be transformed, totally transformed into a beautiful place -- it has never been, but man has always dreamt about it.
I laughed at everything you said the other day until you said that Mahavira smelled. I felt personally offended. It hurt. If not even being born an American Jew has helped me to drop my attachment to Mahavira, if not even your outrageous statements about him have helped, what to do?
Am I stuck with this conditioning forever? Perhaps a few more outrageous remarks from you would help. There is a part of me that goes on being identified with a Jaina part of me that I don't even know -- intellectually-- anything about. I have tried all my life to hide my asceticism in hedonism, but I can see that it is still there.
Satya Bharti, that asceticism is in everyone, and your insight is right that you have been hiding it behind a facade of hedonism. Millions of people are doing that. A real hedonist is not a hedonist at all. I am a real hedonist, but I am not a hedonist at all! The person who thinks he is a hedonist and tries to live the life of a hedonist is simply trying to suppress the deep-rooted asceticism, the deep-rooted sado-masochistic tendencies which have been created in the whole of humanity for millions of years.
Man has lived in such suffering that he had to start worshipping suffering, because there was no other consolation; there was no way to get rid of it. It was so much there that the only possible way was to cover it up, to give it a beautiful color, to paint it beautifully. And the best way was to worship suffering.... That's what asceticism is: worship of suffering, worship of torture.
When a man starts torturing himself, people worship him; this is worshipping a very ill kind of man, a very sick mind.
This part exists in everybody; Jainism is only the full-fledged philosophy of it. But everybody carries a Jaina within himself; a part of everyone around the earth...whether you are a Jew or a Christian or a Hindu or a Mohammedan does not matter, a Jaina is bound to be there because the whole past has been one of such misery that we have all accepted misery as the way of life. And the best way to accept it as the way of life is to worship it, is to give it the color of spirituality. That's what Jainism has done.
You say that you were shocked when I said Mahavira smelled. I am not saying it -- Jaina scriptures are saying it. Of course they say it in such a way that you will not be able to discover it. They say that Mahavira did not smell at all -- but why do you mention it? He did not perspire -- but why do you mention it? And how is a body which is alive able not to perspire? Perspiration is an absolute necessity for an alive body because it keeps the temperature of the body at a fixed point, ninety-eight degrees or something. When it is too hot your body perspires and your perspiration evaporates; that evaporation takes the heat of the body away. It evaporates because of the heat of the body, but in the evaporation the heat is taken away and your body remains at a fixed temperature. Without perspiration you will die.
And Mahavira was not made of steel; he was made of bones, blood, skin, just as you are. He was not manufactured by a Ford company on an assembly line; he was born of a mother. He was as much a human being as you are, as I am, as everybody is. It is impossible not to perspire. But Jainas make it a point that he did not perspire for the simple reason that if he perspired and he did not take any bath, then he would smell. To avoid the fact that he smelled, all these fabrications....
You will be surprised to know Jaina scriptures mention that he did not urinate, he did not defecate. What nonsense is this? I have come across a case in the medical history that seems to be the longest period of constipation: eighteen months. One man remained constipated for eighteen months; that is the record. But it seems the people who write medical history are not aware of Mahavira: for forty-two years.... That is the greatest chronic case of constipation!
Why didn't Mahavira defecate?
Because if you defecate, certainly there will be problems. It is better to deny it, because the problems will be that either he will have to use tissue paper -- which Indians don't use and at that time nobody was aware of -- or he will have to use a toilet, a septic tank.... But there was no septic tank in those days, and even if there were he would not have used it because the water in the septic tank, your turd falling into the water, can kill small germs in the water!
Jaina scriptures say: Never defecate on wet ground, never defecate in a river, never defecate in water! So even now Jaina monks don't go into the toilet; in the modern toilet they cannot go. They have to go outside the city and find a dry place. In the rainy season it is very difficult to find a dry place!
He could not use water after defecating to clean himself because water...he was very much against water because water contains germs and they will be dying and that will be violence. So it is better to cut the root of the problem: he never defecated. Such control! Such discipline!
And you say Jesus did miracles! Walking on water you think is a miracle? This is a miracle: forty-two years, holding, holding, holding...twenty-four hours...! I don't think he had any time to meditate or do anything. Even in sleep he must have been holding, holding! This is sheer greed.
And Sigmund Freud again has the insight. He says the color of shit and gold is the same, so the people who are interested in gold become constipated. Mahavira renounced gold, but must have renounced grudgingly, reluctantly. He took revenge -- he gathered all the gold inside!
And, Satya, you say that you were shocked when I said Mahavira smelled. Just think of forty-two years of constipation, no urination, no bath, no cleansing of the mouth. How can you avoid smelling! But Jaina scriptures say this is the miracle a teerthankara can do. They had to invent these miracles.
There is a story that a snake bites Mahavira on his foot and instead of blood, milk comes out.
And Jainas say this is a real miracle. I don't think this can be milk. It may have looked white, but it can be only pus, it cannot be milk. How can milk come out of the feet, because milks needs a certain mechanism in the body, it exists only in the woman's breasts. The milk has to be created, it is a chemical process. How can the feet create milk? Either he had breasts on the feet...but then the problem arises that he must have been in a very distorted state! And my feeling is, even if a snake bites on the breast of a woman, milk won't come out, blood will come out. So it must have been pus -- this man must have been full of pus. No urination, no defecation -- what else can you have inside?
And, Satya Bharti, you say you were shocked. I myself am shocked, but what to do?
I feel like the guy with the green horse. Help!
Big Prem, a green horse won't do here -- paint it orange. And, moreover, if you can find a donkey that will be far better, because in a poor country like India riding on a horse is a luxury. People will not forgive you -- they cannot forgive me. It will be better if you choose a donkey.
The donkey represents the poor and it also represents the religious. It is a very religious animal -- sad, serious, always in a philosophic mood. And once you paint it orange it is a saint, a mahatma! And then you can write on your donkey "His Holiness, Paramahansa, Donkey-ji Maharaj." Then you are sure to find a man -- that's what she is asking for.
Now Big Prem is really big, and to find a man bigger than Big Prem is a little difficult. But right now one man is free...and be quick! Divya has really given total freedom to Hamid, real freedom! First she was insisting: "You have to live in the room so that I can give you total freedom, because if you live in another room then how will I give you total freedom! I have to practice total freedom and you have to live in my room!" But finally he escaped, so now he is free, Big Prem. Before some other woman gets hold of him...and sooner or later somebody is going to get hold of him, it won't be long. Somebody may have already caught him, because men are so foolish -- and particularly Iranians -- how long can they remain free?
So from this lecture, Buddha Hall, you immediately rush towards Ayatollah Rahullah Hamidullah! Catch hold of him! But if he is already caught then it is difficult. There is only one thing you can do: you can go with your donkey, painted orange, into the Blue Diamond's manager's office. I have received his research -- he may be of great help to you. He seems to be a really alive man in this town of Poona -- in this Mohenjodaro, the city of the dead! He must be an alive man because he has sent his research work. It is printed on a simple card -- his whole research. He has sent it to me but I will give it to Big Prem because she can use it. I will read this research paper to you:
Scientists report...a stroke of genius:
Scientists have determined that the average time of love-making is four minutes. The average number of strokes per minute is nine, making the average love-making thirty-six strokes. Since the average length is six inches, the average girl receives two hundred and sixteen inches or eighteen feet per love-making. The average girl does it three times per week, fifty-two weeks annually -- one hundred and fifty times eighteen makes 2,700 feet, or just over half a mile. So, my girl, if you are not getting your half a mile every year, why not let the man who gave you this card help you catch up?
The name of the Blue Diamond's manager is Mr. Pandit -- you take this card to him. If you cannot get hold of Hamidullah, then you get hold of Mr. Pandit! Of course you will not be satisfied by half a mile...Big Prem is really big!
I got so excited today when you dropped Mahavira, Buddha and Jesus in the wastepaper basket. It was like a breath of mountain air. You gave us a glimpse of yourself that was so intimate and so mischievous.
Would you like to play puck in our next production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream?"
Prem Pramod, That's just far out!
This is far out.
OSHO : Philosophia Ultima : Chapter 16
That too is far out.
From the far out emerges the far out.
The far out coming from the far out,
the far out still remains behind.