YOU SAY UNTIL I TRUST YOU, I CANNOT KNOW YOU. WHAT TO DO?
William, there are two kinds of knowing. One is from a distance: you remain aloof, you
remain an observer, a spectator. That's what scientific knowing is; you need not get
involved in it, in fact you should not get involved. You should be very objective, you
should not allow your subjectivity to interfere with your observation. You should simply
be there like a mechanical watcher. You should not be a human being, you should be just
a computer.
And this is certain, that sooner or later science is going to be taken over by computers,
robots, because they will be more scientific. There will be no subjectivity in them, they
will simply see the fact. The fact will not be interfered with in any way, it will remain
utterly objective.
That is the way of science -- knowing from a distance, keeping aloof, detached. That's
how the scientist will know a rose flower, that's how the scientist will know the sunset,
that's how the scientist will know the beauty of a woman or a man.
But the problem is, something essential is bound to be missed, something very
fundamental, something which is the core of the whole thing. The scientist can know the
roseflower -- he can know of what it is constituted, he can know all the chemicals,
etcetera, but he will never know the beauty of it. He will remain blind to the beauty; his
very approach, his methodology, prohibits him.
If you are detached you cannot know beauty. Beauty is known only when you fall en
rapport, when the observer becomes the observed, when there is no wall between, when
every wall has been transformed into a bridge. When there is a kind of melting, when you
become the flower and the flower becomes you, then there is a totally different kind of
knowing -- the way a poet knows. He will know beauty, he will not know the chemicals.
He will not know the objective flower, he will know something far deeper. He will know
the spirituality of the flower, the spirit of the flower.
And the mystic, his knowing is the highest form of poetic knowing, the ultimate form of
poetic knowing. The poet is there only for moments. Sometimes he is a poet, he meets, he
mingles, merges into the flower; sometimes he becomes a detached observer. Hence
poetry is a kind of mixture of both the knowledges.
Scientific knowledge is purely objective, mystic knowing is purely subjective, poetic
knowing is between the two, a mixture of both -- a little bit of science, a little bit of
religion. But basic knowing can be divided in two, the scientific and the mystic.
Now it depends on you, in what way you want to know me.
You say: "My feelings tell me that until I know you I can't trust you."
These are not feelings -- there you are misunderstanding yourself. These are thoughts,
these cannot be feelings; that's a sheer misunderstanding. This is the way thoughts speak.
Thoughts always say, "Be careful, cautious, move logically" -- and of course this is very
logical: how can you trust me if you don't know me? It is a logical statement. It is not a
statement from your gut level; it cannot be, because gut feelings are very illogical. Gut
feelings will say to you the same as I am saying: trust and you will know.
So the first thing to be said is: these are not your feelings, these are your thoughts. You
watch again, you go into these so-called feelings again, and you will find they are not
coming from the heart, they are coming from the head. The head says, "First know, then
trust."
And this is a great strategy, if you believe in the head and its dictation -- "First know,
then you can trust." Then you will never trust, because knowing cannot happen without
trust, mystic knowing cannot happen without trust. Scientific knowing is possible, but
scientific knowing is not applicable here.
You can know me scientifically. My doctor comes to examine my body; he knows me in
a way. You don't know me in that way, you know me in a totally different way. My
doctor is afraid to come to listen to me, because he does not want to lose a patient. If he
listens to me, then I will be the doctor and he will be the patient! He comes and he is in a
hurry to escape.
Once it happened that he was holding my hand -- I had some trouble with my thumb --
and something happened to him which was not scientific. Outside the room, he told
Vivek, "He is God, he IS God!" -- but since then I have not seen him, he has simply
disappeared. Something nonscientific, something which was not of the head.... He felt me
for a moment but became frightened.
Watch. If your head is saying these things, these are not feelings. Feelings cannot say
these things, because this is not the language of feelings. Feelings say: "Fall in love, and
then you will know." Thoughts say: "Doubt, inquire, make certain. When everything is
absolutely proved and you are convinced, rationally convinced, then you can trust." And
the logic appears very, very clean, there seems to be no trick in it. There is! The trick is
that through scientific knowing you cannot know the mystery that is confronting you, you
cannot know the poetry that is showering on you, you cannot see the beauty and the grace
that is available to you.
You will see my body, you will listen to my words, but you will miss my silences. And
they are my real messages. You will be able to see me as I appear on the surface, but you
will not be able to penetrate into me as I am at the center.
Knowing the circumference is possible scientifically, but by knowing the circumference
of a person love does not arise. And the relationship between the disciple and the master
is the crescendo of love, the highest peak of love. Love cannot go higher than that; that is
the ultimate in love.
These are your thoughts, not feelings. And if you listen to thoughts you cannot have any
communion with me. You will listen to my words, you will listen to my arguments, you
will become more knowledgeable, you will go perfectly satisfied that you have
something with you. And all that is nonsense. Those words that you have accumulated,
the knowledge that you have gathered, are of no use at all.
It is not a question of gathering information here, it is a question of imbibing the spirit;
the only way is to trust. It is only through trust that knowing happens.
Science uses doubt as its method, religion uses trust as its method. That is their
fundamental difference. Doubt is irrelevant in the world of love, just as trust is irrelevant
in the world of things. In the world of I-it, only doubt is significant: you cannot trust
things, the scientist cannot just sit there in trust waiting for something to happen. Nothing
will happen. He has to doubt, inquire, investigate, dissect. He has to use his mind, his
logic, then only some conclusions can be arrived at.
And those conclusions will always remain approximate, they will always remain
conditional, because in the future more facts may be known and the whole thing would
have to be changed again. They cannot be categorical.
So trust is not the point, it never arises in the world of science; doubt remains the base. If
sometimes you come to a conclusion, the conclusion does not become your trust, does not
become your faith. It remains an hypothesis.
An hypothesis means that up to now whatsoever has been known supports this theory. It
is only up to now; we can't say anything about tomorrow. Tomorrow more facts may be
known, and certainly when more facts will be known the hypothesis will have to be
adjusted, and the theory would have to be changed.
Science goes on changing every day; it is temporal, it lives in the world of time, because
mind is time. Mind cannot live without time; mind is momentary, temporal.
The world of religion functions in a totally different dimension, on a different level. It
begins in trust, in love, then a totally different kind of knowing happens.
When you love a woman, you know her. You know her not as the gynecologist knows
her, you know her in a totally different way. You don't know her physiology, you don't
know her material existence, but you know her spiritual presence. Love, only love, is
capable of knowing the spiritual presence. You fall in love not with the physical body,
you fall in love with the spiritual presence of a person. But that is available only in trust.
In science, trust is utterly useless. In religion, doubt is utterly useless.
So, William, it is up to you. If you have come here to study what is happening here
scientifically, then you are welcome. You can go according to your own thoughts -- don't
call them feelings, please. You can go on according to your head -- don't call it your
heart, it is not. You are welcome: be here, study, observe, come to certain conclusions --
but they will remain hypotheses.
But if you have come to be transformed, not to be informed only, then you will have to
understand that there is a different door. And that door is trust. Trust is an absurd
phenomenon, logically absurd. That's why logic always says love is blind, although love
has its own eyes, far more deep-going... still, to logic it is blind.
Logic ridicules love, and love smiles knowingly at the whole foolishness of logic.
If you have come here with a logical approach... study, observe, come to some
conclusions, but they are not going to transform you; that much you must be aware of. If
you have come to be transformed, then fall in love. Then forget the head, then let there be
a contact heart-to-heart, spirit-to-spirit. Then there is no need to be too much concerned
with what you see, your whole concern should be with what you feel. Then you should
not be too much concerned in collecting information, but being in celebration with me.
Then don't take much note of what I say, take note of what I am. Listen to my silences,
the pauses, the gaps, the intervals -- I am more there. Then you will become aware of a
totally different world existing here, the buddhafield. It is an energy field; you have to be
open and vulnerable to it, only then it can permeate you, pervade you, overwhelm you.
No comments:
Post a Comment