IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT NO DESIRE, NEITHER WORLDLY NOR RELIGIOUS, CAN LEAD TOWARDS FREEDOM. BUT A POSITIVE IMAGINATION OF HAPPINESS AND BLISS IS ALSO A SORT OF DESIRE. THEN ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IMAGINATION IS ALSO DESIRE AND HENCE CREATES TENSIONS?

Imagination is not desire. Imagination is just a play.

Desire is a totally different thing. You can base your imagination on desire, you can project your imagination through desire -- then it will be a bondage. If you simply play with imagination without any desire -- not to reach anywhere, not to get anything out of it, but just as a game, then it is not desire and not binding. These techniques of imagination can be helpful only if you are playing with them. If you get serious, you lose the point.

But the question is relevant because, really, you cannot conceive of anything which you can do without desire. Even if you are playing, you can play only to reach somewhere, to get something, to win. If there is nothing in the future, you will lose interest. You will say, "Then why? Then why play at all?"

We are so end-oriented that we turn everything into a means. This must be remembered: meditation is the ultimate play, it is not a means to something, it is not a means to enlightenment. Enlightenment happens in it, but it is not a means to it. It is not a means to ultimate freedom. Ultimate freedom happens in it, but it is not a means to it. You cannot use it as a cause to effect something. This has been one of the most puzzling things -- all through the centuries, those who have known go on insisting on meditation for meditation's sake. Don't desire anything out of it, enjoy it in itself, don't move out of it -- and the consequence will be enlightenment. Remember, consequence -- not effect. Meditation is not a cause, but if you are deep in meditation, enlightenment happens. Really, being deep in the play is enlightenment.

But the mind always turns everything into work. It says, "Do something because this will be the profit from it." Imaginary or real, the mind needs something to hang onto, to project onto. Only then can it devote itself. That is how mind functions -- it functions in the present for the future. The future may be illusory, it may not ever happen, but if the mind can hope for the future then it can work. This is what is called desire: working in the present for the future. The end is always somewhere else; the means are here but the end is somewhere else. This division of end and means, this gap, is desire. If you are playing, there is no desire because the end is here and the means are also here. While playing there is no future; you are simply merged so much in it that the future disappears.

Look at children playing. Look at their faces, at their eyes. Now they are in eternity. They are happy because they are playing. Happiness will not result in an end, it is here right now. Moment to moment they are happy -- not that something great is going to happen later on -- it is happening already. They are in eternity. But their minds are still not developed. We will force them to develop because this play will not be of much help in the world. They will have to learn work. They will have to divide means and end. They will have to create a gap between this moment and the future, and we will teach them to sacrifice the present for the future. This is the way of the world, the way of the market, the way of desire. Desire makes everything utilitarian.

In meditation you will become a child again, playing, with no idea of the future, enjoying this very moment, enjoying the very act in itself, intrinsically. Then imagination is not desire. Then you can play with it, and it is one of the most beautiful things possible. And this playing, this being in the moment, totally absorbed, is enlightenment. The moment it happens you are transformed.

So enlightenment is never in the future, it is always in the present; and it is not a work to be done, it is a game to be played.

That is the meaning of the Indian concept of LEELA. God is playing; he is not engaged in work. This world is not utilitarian, it is just a play of energy. Energy enjoys itself playing; it divides itself and then plays the game of hide and seek. So, really, Indian seers have never said that God is the creator, they say that God is the player -- because the very word `creation' carries much seriousness about it, as if there is some end and something has to be achieved. God creating the world? This is absurd. Because it means that something is lacking, so God is creating the world to achieve something. Or it means that there is a future, so God also lives in desire.

Jains and Buddhists could not understand the Hindu concept of LEELA, so they completely denied God. Because if God creates the world, then he desires -- so Jains and Buddhists say that if God desires, then God is part of the world. He himself is not free, he himself is not liberated. So they completely denied the concept of God because they say that God means one who is beyond desire. And they say that Mahavir is a God, he is beyond desire, but Brahma is not a God because he creates the world, he desires the world. They couldn't follow the concept of LEELA.

The concept of LEELA is totally different from the concept of creation. God is just playing and you cannot ask "Why?" because a play has no "Why?" to answer. If children are playing can you ask, "Why are you playing?" They will say, "We are playing, so we are playing." Playing is good in itself -- the energy is moving, abundant energy is overflowing.

The more you grow the less you play. Why? Because now your energy is not so overflowing. Now you have become economical. Now you know that you have a certain amount of energy and you have to channel that energy for work, to achieve something. Children are just overflowing. Their energy is so much that they have to play. The play is just overflowing energy, too much energy moving. Then they enjoy the very moment. A child is jumping, running, but not to reach some goal. Running itself is a beautiful experience of vital energy, an experience of vitality, an experience of being alive, of overflowing so abundantly that you can throw out the energy without any economical mind behind it.

God means absolute energy, infinite energy. God cannot be economical. He has so much, so infinitely much, that he can only play. And this play goes on and on, there is no end to it. There cannot be because the energy is infinite. And you cannot ask "Why?" Energy moves, there is no "Why?" to it. If God created the world you can ask, "Why? Why have you created the world?" But if he is simply playing you cannot ask "Why?"

When you also become a player, you become Divine. If you are a worker you are human; if you are a player you have become Divine. Then you share in the game. That's why we have called Krishna the absolute AVATAR. We have not called Ram the absolute AVATAR, we call him a partial AVATAR -- a partial coming of the Divine to the world. But Krishna we call an absolute coming. The difference is that Ram is serious. He is still utilitarian, end-oriented: this is right and that is wrong. Only in work do right and wrong exist: this should be done and that should not be done, this is good and that is bad. For Krishna everything has become a play so everything is arbitrary -- just rules of the game.

If you follow the rules, and if you follow them knowing that this is a game and that the rules have to be followed, it is good. If you don't follow, nothing is wrong; really, you are playing the reverse game of not following. If you obey, you follow the game of obedience; if you don't obey, you follow the game of disobedience, the game of rebelliousness. But nothing is wrong. What you want to play is your choice. And if you are not serious and are happy whatsoever you do, you are enlightened.

There are rules because a game has to be played with others. If you are playing alone there is no question of rules; then you can change your rules any moment you like. But because you are playing with others, rules have to be followed so that you can play with them. There isn't any other reason behind it. Morality is a rule, love is a rule, society is just a rule -- agreed-upon rules that we are going to play a game so we will agree. If you don't want to play the game then you can be rebellious, but don't be serious about it. Then play the game of being rebellious. And if someone kills you, murders you, or crucifies you, you know that you were playing the game of a rebellious leader, so you have been killed. There is no condemnation. You were not with the established rules, so the established rules were against you -- it is okay. Then nothing is wrong, and you don't have to complain.

Once you become aware that the concept of work, utility, reaching somewhere, the goal, is the bondage, it doesn't mean that you stop playing the dame in the market -- you go on playing. But you know that this is a game. It doesn't mean that you divorce your wife -- you go on playing the game of marriage. But know well that this is a game. Don't get serious about it. And if you want to play the game of divorce, you can play it, but remember, don't get serious about it. Divorce or marriage -- these are alternative games; being a worldly man or becoming a sannyasin -- these are alternative games. But don't be serious about it. Be light-hearted, festive. And whatsoever you choose, you can play; and whatsoever consequences follow, you will welcome them because there is nothing serious about them.

Once this deepens in your consciousness -- and it will deepen if you start playing with meditation -- it will be a good beginning. Because in meditation you alone are the player. That's why it can be a good beginning, the right beginning. You are alone playing the game so you can forget society and society will not come to interfere. This is a solo game, meditation, a solo game. You play alone.

So whatsoever you want to play you can play, but forget the ends. If there are ends you have also turned meditation into a work. Just play it, enjoy it, love it. It is beautiful in itself. There is no need for any other end to beautify it.

People come to me and they say, "We are enjoying meditation, but tell us what is going to happen. What will be the end result?" I tell them, "This IS the end result -- that you are enjoying. Enjoy it more!" But they go on insisting, "Tell us something about it. What will be the end result? Where will we reach to?" They are not concerned at all where they are: they are always concerned with where they will reach to. The mind cannot exist in the present so it goes on giving you excuses to move into the future. These excuses are the desires. So if you desire to be a god, to be a buddha, your meditation will be a sort of desire, and then it is not meditation. If you don't desire anything, you just enjoy being here, you just celebrate being alive, you enjoy the inner energy playing in imagination, in visions, in emptiness, whatsoever you choose, and you are totally one with this moment of enjoyment, then it is meditation. Then there is no desire, and, with no desire, the world drops. With a non-desiring, playful mind you have entered. You are already in it.

But this has to be hammered into your mind again and again because your mind is a transformer. It transforms anything into a desire -- anything -- it can transform even non-desire into a desire. People come to me and they say, "How does one achieve the state of non-desire?" How to achieve the state of non-desire? Now this has become the desire. Your mind has a transforming mechanism: whatsoever you put in will come out as a desire.

Be alert of this and enjoy moments so much that no energy is left to move into the future. Then, any day, any moment, it will happen to you that suddenly all the darkness falls; suddenly all that is a burden disappears; suddenly you are freed. But the emphasis should be more and more on play, the present, here and now -- and less and less on the future.

The second question:

THAT MIND IS REALITY, DREAM IS REALITY. THEN WHY DO GURUS LIKE YOU TAKE THE TROUBLE TO TEACH US THAT MIND IS THE ONLY BARRIER, MIND IS THE ONLY OBSTACLE?

Gurus and disciples are mind phenomena. Because your mind needs gurus, there are gurus. You create them. Because you want to be taught, there are teachers. You need them.

This is a game. When I say marriage is a game, don't think that I would not say that `guru and disciples' is not a game. It is a game. Some people enjoy it, so they play it. If you enjoy it, play it deeply; if you don't enjoy it, forget it. But this is one of the most beautiful of games. It goes even deeper than marriage.

It is one of the most beautiful, most refined of games -- and only when a culture reaches the peak does this dame develop, never before. So, really, only in India has the game developed. The game of the guru and the disciple came into being here. Now the West is discovering it for the first time because now the West is reaching to a peak. This game is the most luxurious. It is not ordinary, so only people who can afford it can play it. And if you know that this is a beautiful game and you enjoy it, you can play it. But don't get serious about it. And disciples can be forgiven if they are serious, but when teachers are serious it is absurd. It cannot be forgiven if they are not even aware that this is a game.

In reality all games disappear, but for the mind, games exist. By this I am not saying that you should stop playing, I am only saying that you should become aware that this is a play and then if you enjoy it go on playing it. If you don't enjoy it, then stop. Once you become aware that everything in life, every relationship, is a sort of game, you are already free, because you are in bondage only because of the seriousness. You are in bondage because you think everything is so serious. Nothing is so serious. But it is difficult to conceive of this whole life as a game.

Why is it so difficult? Because then the ego falls flat. If everything is a game, the ego cannot stand. The ego needs food. Seriousness is the food. It feeds on it. So when you become a disciple, if you are just playing, your ego cannot get strong through it because you know that this is a play.

What is there to be so egoistic about? People start thinking that they are disciples of a very great guru. The guru may not be great or he may be great, that is not the point -- but the disciple thinks, "I am the disciple of the greatest guru." That becomes a vitamin and the ego grows on it, becomes stronger.

That's why disciples go on fighting about gurus. No one can believe that his guru is number two, he is always number one. And it is not about whether he is number one or not -- that is not the point -- it is because you can be number one only if your guru is number one. The ego of the disciple depends on the height of the guru. If someone says something against your guru, why do you feel so hurt? Your ego is hurt. YOUR guru means YOUR ego, embodied, and if someone says something against your guru, you cannot tolerate it. It is impossible because it is a direct hit at your ego.

But for disciples it can be tolerated. They are ignorant and whatsoever they do, they will do wrongly. That is agreed upon. But so-called gurus are also playing the game very seriously. They cannot laugh; it is impossible for them to laugh about the whole game. A guru is really a guru when he knows that the whole thing is a game and that in the game he is helping to make you more aware. And a moment will come when you will also laugh, a moment will come when you will be able to look back -- and then you will feel very grateful because for you it was so serious and for the guru it was never anything. But he was playing the game so seriously with you and making every effort -- as if he was leading you somewhere.

Remember, it is `as if' because there is nowhere to lead you to. You have to be here. So all the efforts which appear to be leading you somewhere are just devices. You cannot be led anywhere. You are already at home, you have never left it. You are rooted in the reality, in the truth. So all these games of leading, guidance, guru-dom, are to bring you to situations where you will find everything that you wanted to find already there.

But you cannot understand non-seriousness. The ego doesn't know that language. Every religion is born as a play, and every religion becomes a church, very serious, deadly serious. Every religion is born as a dance, as a song, as a festivity, and then everything goes dead and serious. Religion cannot be serious really. It must be ecstatic. It must be the highest peak of bliss. How can it be serious?

Christians go on thinking and believing that Jesus never laughed. Look at Krishna -- you cannot find any common ground between them. Not that Jesus was like that, but Christians have made him serious because only around a serious Jesus is a serious church possible. And then the whole game of popes -- so serious, so burdened. Jesus must have been a very light-hearted man, laughing, enjoying, eating, drinking, dancing. He must have loved life very deeply.

That was the sin. That was the reason why he was crucified. Those who crucified him were very serious. They were the old established church. Really, they did not crucify Jesus -- they crucified the festivity of him. And there would have been no Christianity if he had not been crucified, because he was a very joyous man. The moment Jews crucified him the whole thing became very serious. Death became the point. And the figure on the cross is of course very serious -- dead. And Christianity arose around the dead body and the cross. The cross became the symbol -- not Jesus laughing in a village, drinking at a party, eating with friends, or staying in a prostitute's home. No, they were not to become the symbols. The cross became the symbol, and with the cross, seriousness -- dead seriousness. And because of that cross and the crucified Jesus, Christianity went against life. All that is alive became sin.

And every religion goes on doing this in its own way.

Those who are very sophisticated will not do it in this way, they will do it in another way. We have not transformed Krishna -- India is a very sophisticated land, it will not do such a thing -- but we have never taken him to our heart. He is just a myth, beautiful.

The Gita became more important than Bhagvad. Krishna's life is not so important for Hindus, but his message delivered on the war field is very important. Why? Because it is a serious thing. A war field is nearer to death than to life. Krishna's life is very much alive, but that has become a myth and nobody bothers about it. His few words uttered on the war field have become more important than his whole life. And then there are pundits who go on explaining that his life is just symbolic, it is not real. His playing with the GOPIS is not real -- GOPIS are just symbols of senses, not real. They are not real women of bone and flesh, no. GOPIS are not women, they are symbolic. And pundits are very efficient in doing such tricks. They say that Krishna is the soul and the GOPIS are the senses of the body -- the senses are dancing around the soul. This is a sophisticated country. They kill Krishna, they crucify Krishna, but in a very sophisticated way. His festivity is killed; it becomes symbolic, meaningless. And his whole real life is pushed aside.

He was dancing with real women, but that is shocking because we cannot conceive of Krishna dancing with real women. We can allow him to dance with symbolic women but not with real women. We will be shocked. Life shocks us. We have become so dead that anything alive shocks us.

Every religion is born in festivity -- and when the festivity dies know well that the religion is dead. Whenever a new religion is born, all the old religions will be against it because again the festivity will be there. Just as when a child is born -- every child is born as a player, festive, alive, celebrating, irresponsibly celebrating, not believing in the future, believing in the here and now -- the whole society will be against him; the whole society will try to put him right before he goes astray. He must be put on the right track.

The same happens with every new religion. So when I talk of meditation as a dance, or when I talk about SANNYAS as an inner celebration and happiness, an affirmation of life, of course all those who belong to old traditions will say, "You call this SANNYAS?" And in a way they are right because whatsoever they have been believing that SANNYAS is, is not this. They have been believing in dead men -- the more dead, the more they say, "Now this is real renunciation." When life has been renounced, they call it SANNYAS -- but I call it SANNYAS when life is being lived in its totality.

But this is how it will be always. When I am no more, you will turn it into a serious thing. You will give explanations of what the real meaning is. But the real meaning is always obvious, there is no need to give any explanation. All explanations are to explain away -- to bring in something which was not there.

Gurus, disciples, awakened ones and ignorant ones... this is a great play, a cosmic play. Ignorant ones need awakened ones; awakened ones cannot play solo, alone -- they need ignorant ones. But the master knows that this is a play and is not serious about it.

The third question:

YOU SAID LAST NIGHT THAT A CHANGE IN THE OUTER OR INNER AND PHYSICAL OR MENTAL ASPECTS CAN BRING A CHANGE IN CONSCIOUSNESS. THAT MEANS THAT CHANGES ON THE PERIPHERY ALSO AFFECT THE CONSCIOUSNESS, THE CENTER. BUT THEN WHY DO YOU EMPHASIZE CHANGING THE CENTER, INSTEAD OF CHANGING THE OUTER, THE PERIPHERY?

This is the trouble: you go on catching the words and missing the meaning.

The periphery also belongs to you; it is part of the center. The periphery is part of the center, it is the outer part of the center, but it is not different from the center. Can you create a periphery without the center? Or can you create a center without the periphery? They are not separate, they are one. The periphery is the center looked at from without. If you change your periphery, the center will also be affected for two reasons: firstly, the periphery is part of the center, and secondly, what will change the periphery but the center? What will change the periphery? The center will change the periphery.

But my emphasis on starting the work from the center is still there because if you start changing the periphery it will take a longer time to reach to the center. That which can be done in a single moment may take many lives, because you have to travel from the periphery to the center -- backwards from the superficial to the depth. If you start work from the center, the periphery automatically changes. When the center is different, the periphery will follow it because the periphery cannot go away from you. For example, I will not tell you to try to be non-violent at the periphery -- it is an unnecessary wastage of time and effort. Be non-violent at the heart, be compassionate, loving, at the heart -- and the periphery will follow. You can forget it completely because whatsoever happens at the periphery comes from the center, so if at the center you are compassionate, the periphery will follow. And this compassion will be totally different because the periphery will not know that this is compassion; the periphery will not feel elated that this is compassion; the periphery will be blissfully unaware -- the compassion will follow you like a shadow. This is the easiest course.

What I mean is this: if you want to change a tree, change the roots. Of course, the leaves of the tree are also the tree, and you can also try to change the leaves. If you change the leaves the roots will be affected but it is going to be a very long process because the flow is from the roots to the leaves, the flow is not from the leaves to the roots. You are following a reverse direction from that of nature. If you go on changing the leaves, after many, many lives you may affect the pattern of the roots, but this is going to be unnecessarily long. You can do it immediately if you change the pattern at the roots. The leaves will change and will become different.

So when I emphasize the center, I don't mean that the periphery is separate from the center. And when I emphasize the center, I don't mean that you cannot affect the center from the periphery -- you can, but this is the longest route possible. If you choose to travel the long route it is up to you. Nothing is wrong in it. If you enjoy the journey, then the long route is good. If you just want to see the side views then the long route is good. Otherwise start from the center.

It is like this: we are sitting here and you are listening to me, so a center is created in this room -- you become the periphery, I become the center. A group soul exists. You are centered towards me. If someone wants to affect this room and this group soul, it is better to start from me than from you. Because if I change my mind, effects will come soon, but if someone starts from you, it is going to be a very long effort. Because for one thing, you are many and first he has to change you one by one, and then he must try to change me through you. This is going to be very long, and it may not succeed ever. The other is easier. If he changes me and if you are attached to me as the center, immediately there will be effects.

In your body, in your being, the same phenomenon is happening. There is the center and there is the periphery of your life. With a direct hit at the center the periphery will follow -- it has to follow, there is no other way to go. Changing the periphery is a piecemeal affair: you change one fragment and ninety-nine other fragments remain as the old; then when you move to another fragment, those ninety-nine others will change the one you tried to change -- they will make it again the old. The whole pattern will be against it. I can change one habit -- much effort will be needed -- but not your whole pattern because your center goes on giving you all the old habits. I have changed only one habit and there are thousands of habits. This changed habit is just from the surface, forced. The moment you become unaware, all the other habits and the pattern will change it again into the old. So much effort is wasted working on the periphery.

I have seen people who have been working their whole life for ordinary things. For example, someone has been trying for his whole life to stop smoking -- this has been the whole aim, the only aim, and he has not achieved it. I tell such a person that even if you achieve it, what is achieved? The while life is lost just in trying to stop smoking. It is not worth it. When you reach to the Divine source, to God, you will only be able to say that you have stopped smoking. This won't be worth telling. And the whole life has been spent trying to stop smoking and even that has not been achieved. This is piecemeal work. And the problem is not smoking: you are fighting against a current by changing a small wave -- and the whole river goes on flowing. If you change a wave, the whole river will change the wave back again into itself, because the pattern, the built-in pattern, goes on being flashed from the center to the periphery. It is a built-in program: whatsoever is happening on the periphery has happened already in the center. That's why it is happening there. The periphery comes to know about things which have been happening very deeply.

Move to the cause and don't be too much concerned with the effect.

This is scientific. Change the center. Don't try to stop smoking, don't try to stop this and that -- follow the deepest pattern. Why is smoking there? Why is this obsession with sex there? Why is this obsession with money there? Why are you a miser? Why do you go on clinging to dead money? You can donate it -- it will not make any difference. Donating will not help, you will again gather. And donating in itself will be an investment for the future, it will be part of your bank balance. You cannot donate just in play, can you? You can donate very seriously when it is said that the donation will lead you to heaven. Then you can donate. To me a donator who is giving his money for some future end in paradise is more clinging to his money than a person who can throw away all his fortune in a game of cards. This person is less greedy. He can play with it, and his achievement is deeper. He may look immoral because morality is created by the donators. They will say, "You are wasting money." They never waste money; they always invest it. And this man is mad, immoral, wasting money. But this man is less greedy, and this man can move deeper more easily than the greedy man who is donating for some paradise or something.

You can change outer things, but even the change will deep down have the same pattern. The pattern has to be uprooted and transformed. That's why I emphasize starting from the center. But don't think that I mean that if you cannot start from the center, don't start from the periphery. That is not what I mean. If you can't start from the center, please start from the periphery. Something is better than nothing. It will take much time, or you may not ever be able to do it, but still the very effort will be good.

I am reminded of an incident. In a waiting room of an airport, a young woman was crying steadily. Everyone around was aware of it, but no one know what to do. Then one fellow took courage. He came near the woman, tried to console her, said some soothing things, put his arm around her, and asked, "What can I do? Is there anything I can do to help you to stop crying?" But she was not listening. She continued crying, so he squeezed her a little more tightly and then again asked, "Is there anything I can do to stop you from crying?" The woman said at last, "I am afraid not. This is hayfever, but, still, please, keep on trying."

That's what I say to you. From the periphery it is difficult because it is like hayfever. It is almost impossible, but please, keep on trying. Something may happen. Who knows?

But if you are really interested, start from the center.

The fourth question:

WHY SHOULD THERE BE A DIFFERENCE IN TECHNIQUES FOR MEN AND WOMEN?

Because they are different. They are as different as possible. They are polar opposites. Really, the more relevant question would be this: Why should there be similar techniques?

There are techniques which are being used by both men and women, not because they are suited to women, but really because special techniques were never developed for them. They have been a neglected part of humanity. All the techniques were developed by men. Basically man was experimenting with himself: he knew about his energy pattern, his routes of energy, his passages of energy. He worked on these. And then he was talking to other men -- so techniques were developed by men for men. Women were never considered.

Women cannot enter a Mohammedan mosque. They are not to be a part of Islam really: the mosque exists only for men. For many years Buddha insistently denied women initiation. Mahavir initiated many women, he never denied them initiation, but no techniques were developed for them. All the techniques were for men. Women worked through them. That's why the results were never so miraculous, never; they were always so-so, bound to be. Really, there is no need for three hundred religions in the world, there is only need for two religions: one for men and one for women. And those two religions need not be in conflict, they can be married together. They will become one. There is no need of any conflict. If a man and a woman can fall in love and live together as a single unit, those two religions can fall in love -- they should.

The whole physiology, the whole psychology, every layer of the feminine consciousness is different from man's -- not only different, just the opposite. For example, kundalini yoga... it is not for women at all. But many will be shocked if I say that. And women particularly will be shocked. They will think that something has been taken out of their hands. It is not for them at all because kundalini is based on the positive sex center for man. The positive sex center is at the root of the penis -- for men not for women. For women that center is negative, and energy cannot be raised from a negative center. So almost always it is the case -- this is my observation -- that whenever women say they are feeling kundalini arising in the, they are imagining. It cannot happen but they are very imaginary, more imaginary than men. So if I work with ten women and ten men, nine women will feel the energy arising and only one man will feel the energy arising. This is miraculous because it cannot happen! They go on coming to me and I say, "Okay, it is happening." What to do? It is impossible, scientifically impossible, because energy can come only from a positive pole.

Totally different techniques should be developed, totally different techniques -- but because man and woman live so near, so close together, they go on forgetting that they are different. Nothing is similar, and it is good that nothing is similar, because that's why they can become one circle of energy. They are complementary, they fit into each other. But because they fit that doesn't mean that they are similar -- they fit because they are not similar.

And whenever two similar types of bodies and minds try to fit into each other, this is perversion. So I say that homosexuality is a perversion. In the West, now, it has become more and more prevalent. Now homosexuals think they are progressive: they have their clubs, parties, institutions, magazines, propaganda, everything. And their number is rising. In certain countries it has come to near about forty per cent. Sooner or later homosexuality will become a pattern all over, a normal pattern. Now even certain states in America are allowing homosexual marriage. If people insist, you have to allow it because the government has to serve the people. If two men want to live together in marriage, it is no one's business to create obstacles. It's okay. If two women want to live together, married, it's no one's business. It's their own affair. But this is basically unscientific. It is their affair, but unscientific. It is their affair and no one needs to interfere, but their minds are unenlightened about the very basic pattern of human energy and its movement. Homosexuals cannot develop spirituality. It is very difficult. Their whole pattern of energy movement is disturbed. The whole mechanism is shocked, perverted. And now if homosexuality grows too much in the world, very different techniques will have to be developed, unknown before, to help them to move towards meditation.

When I say a man and woman are two counterparts of one whole, I mean they are complementary. And the complementariness is possible only when their opposite poles meet. Look at it in this way: the vagina is the negative pole in the feminine body and the breasts are the positive pole. This is the rod of magnetism: the positive pole near the breasts, the negative pole near the vagina. For man the negative pole is at the breasts, and the positive pole is at the penis. So when breasts meet -- male and female -- negative and positive are meeting; and when sex centers meet in coitus, negative and positive are meeting. Now both magnetic rods are meeting at their opposite poles, now there is a circle -- the energy can flow, the energy can move. But this circle will happen only when a man and woman are in love. If they are not in love, then only their sex centers will meet -- one positive pole will meet with one negative pole. There will be an exchange of energy, but linear. A circle cannot be made. That's why without love you never feel satisfied.

Sex without love becomes just a trifle. It is not deep moving. Energy moves, but in a line -- a circle is not made. And when a circle is there you become one, not before. When you are deep in love, then breasts also meet, never before. So the sex act is very easy, the love act is more complex. The sex act is just physical -- two energies meeting and dissipating. Hence, if there is only sex, sooner or later you will feel frustrated: you waste energy and nothing is gained. The gain happens only when there is a circle. If the circle is totally there, then both the partners will come out of the sex act more energetic, more alive, more charged, with more energy flowing. If there is only the sex act, both partners will come out of it discharged, faint. They have lost energy. Sleep will follow because all they are feeling is weak.

In this `one pole meeting', men are at more of a loss than women. That's why women can become prostitutes -- because the positive pole is man and the negative pole is woman. Energy flows from man to woman but not vice versa. So a woman can be in twenty or thirty sex acts in one night, a man cannot. A man cannot be in two. It depends on age, how his energy is moving -- because nothing is gained. So to me, if prostitution is bad it is not because of prostitution, it is because a circle is impossible. You are not charged. You simply waste your energy. If there is love, then man and woman meet on two poles. Man gives to the woman and the woman returns it back. This is reciprocal, mutual.

For females, meditation will be good if it starts from the breasts. That is their positive pole. Because of this, many strange things become possible, happen. Man always likes to enter the woman immediately. He is not interested in foreplay because his positive pole is always ready. And women are always reluctant to enter into the sex act immediately, without any foreplay, because their negative pole is not ready. And it cannot be ready. Unless the man starts loving the woman from the breasts, the negative pole will not be ready. They can yield but they will not participate. And man thinks the sex act is simple. Why waste time? Enter the woman immediately -- and he is finished within minutes. But the woman was not a part, she was not aroused. That's why women have a hankering that their lovers should touch their breasts, love their breasts -- a deep hankering. Only when their breasts have become filled with energy does their second pole of the magnetic rod, which is negative, respond. Then they are alive to it, then they can participate, then communication is possible -- and then they will melt. Foreplay is a must.

Marriages become dry because in the beginning when you meet a new woman you play with her body before. You are not certain whether she will allow you a direct approach, so you play. You just feel the ground to see whether she is ready. But when she is your wife, you take her for granted -- there is no need. Wives are so dissatisfied with their husbands, not because their husbands are not loving but because they are wrongly loving. They don't think that a woman exists in a different way; that her body responds in a different way just opposite to them.

This concentration at the breasts, melting into them, will give a new feeling to the female meditator -- a new feeling about her own body, because now from the center she can feel the whole body vibrating. Just by loving the breasts of a woman she can be brought to a deep orgasm because the negative pole will automatically go on responding.

There are many other things. If you start from the breasts, meditating on the nipples, don't follow the route that you have read in books because that is meant for men. Simply don't follow any chart, just allow the energy itself to move. It will happen in this way: with just a vague suggestion your breasts will become filled with energy, they will radiate energy, they will become hot, and then immediately your vagina will respond. And only after your vagina responds and vibrates, will your kundalini start working. The route will be different and the way the kundalini will arise will be different.

In man it arises very actively, forcibly. That's why they have called it a serpent rising. Very forcibly, suddenly, with a jerk, the serpent unfolds. And it is felt on many points. Those points are called chakras. Wherever there is resistance, the snake forces itself. Just as the penis enters the vagina, so the passage is similar for man. When the energy arises it is as if the penis inside is moving.

And the snake is a phallic symbol. Really, not to use direct language, not to call it penis, they have called it a snake. You must have heard the story of the Garden of Eden where the serpent persuaded Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Now scholars are working and they say that this serpent is also just a phallic symbol, used so as not to say it directly. So it is not a question, really, of eating the Fruit of Knowledge; it is a question of sexuality.

The same symbol has been used similarly in India: the serpent rises just like a penis erecting in jerks, and moving inwards.

This will not be the feeling for woman. The feeling will be quite the opposite. As a woman feels when the penis has entered the vagina -- the melting sensation, the welcoming, the vagina giving way, vibrating very, very delicately, in a very receptive mood, loving, welcoming -- the same will be the phenomenon inside. When the energy rises, it will be a receptive, passive rise, as if a passage is opening -- not a serpent rising, but a door opening, and a passage opening, and something giving way. It will be passive and negative. With men something is entering; with women something is opening, not entering.

But no one has worked on it, never before, because no one has taken any cognisance of women. But for the future, I think that now it is a must -- the feminine body should not be neglected. Much research and work is needed, but it is very difficult to work because of so much puritanical, moralistic nonsense. It is very difficult to work and to create a map of how the feminine body will respond to the phenomena.

But this is how I feel it will be; everything will be just the opposite. It must be so. It cannot be similar. But the ultimate thing will be the same.