WE HAVE ALWAYS HEARD THAT TANTRA IS BASICALLY CONCERNED WITH SEX ENERGY AND SEX CENTER TECHNIQUES, BUT YOU SAY THAT TANTRA IS ALL-INCLUSIVE. IF THERE IS ANY TRUTH IN THE FORMER STANDPOINT, THE MAJORITY OF TECHNIQUES IN VIGYANA BHAIRAVA SEEM TO BE NON-TANTRIC. IS THIS TRUE?

The first thing is to understand sex energy. As you understand it, it is just a part, one part, one fragment of the life force, but as Tantra understands it, it is just synonymous with life. It is not a part, not a fragment -- it is life itself. So when Tantra says "sex" energy it means "life" energy.

The same is true about Freudian concepts of sex energy. Freud was also very much misunderstood in the West. It appeared to people that he was reducing life to sex, but he was doing the same thing that Tantra has been doing for so long. Life is sex. The word "sex" is not confined to reproduction, the whole play of life energy is sex. Reproduction is just a part of that play. Wherever two energies are meeting -- negative and positive -- sex has entered.

It is difficult to understand. For example: you are listening to me. If you ask Freud, or if you ask Tantra masters, they would say that listening is passive, feminine, and speaking is male. Speaking is a penetration of you and you are receptive to it. Between a speaker and a listener a sex act is happening because the speaker is trying to penetrate you and the listener is receiving. The energy in the listener has become feminine, and if the listener has not become feminine there will be no phenomenon of listening. That is why the listener has to be totally passive. He should not think while listening because thinking will make him active. He should not go on arguing within between argument will make him active. While listening, he should be simply listening, not doing anything else. Only then can the message penetrate and become illumined. But then the listener has become feminine.

Communication happens only when one party has become male and the other party has become female, otherwise there can be no communication. Wherever negative and positive meet, sex has happened. It may be on the physical plane -- positive and negative electricity meet and sex has happened. Wherever polarities meet, opposites meet, it is sex. So sex is a very wide, a very spacious term, it is not concerned only with reproduction. Reproduction is only one type of phenomenon which is included in sex. Tantra says that when the ultimate bliss and ecstasy comes inside you, it means your own positive and negative pole have come to a meeting -- because every man is both man and woman, and every women is both man and woman. You are born not only from woman or from man, you are born out of a meeting of the opposites. Your father has contributed, your mother has contributed. You are half your mother and half your father and they both co-exist within you. When they meet within, ecstasy happens.

Buddha sitting under his Bodhi tree is in a deep inner orgasm. The inner forces have met, they have melted into each other. Now there will be no need to seek a woman outside because the meeting has happened with the inner woman. And Buddha is non-attached to, or detached from, woman outside, not because he is against woman, but because the ultimate phenomenon has happened within. Now there is no need. An inner circle has become whole, now it is complete. That is why such grace comes to Buddha's face. It is the grace of being complete. Now nothing is lacking, a deep fulfillment has happened, now there is no further journey. He has achieved the ultimate destiny. The inner forces have come to a meeting and now there is no conflict. But it is a sexual phenomenon. Meditation is a sexual phenomenon, that is why Tantra is said to be sex-based, sex-oriented -- and all these hundred and twelve techniques are sexual.

Really, no meditative technique can be non-sexual. But you have to understand the wideness of the term "sex". If you don't understand you will be confused, and misunderstanding will follow.

So whenever Tantra says "sex-energy" it means the "elan-vital", the life-energy itself. They are synonymous. Whatsoever we call sex is just one dimension of life-energy. There are other dimensions. And really it should be so. You see a seed sprouting, somewhere flowers are coming on a tree, the birds are singing -- the whole phenomenon is sexual. It is life manifesting itself in many ways. When the bird is singing it is a sexual call, an invitation. When the flower is attracting butterflies and bees it is an invitation, because the bees and butterflies will carry the seeds of reproduction. Stars are moving in space.... No one has yet worked on it but it is one of the oldest Tantra concepts that there are male planets and female planets -- otherwise there would be no movement. It must be so because the polarity is needed, the opposite is needed to create magnetism, to create attraction. Planets must be male and female. Everything must be divided into these two polarities. And life is a rhythm between these two opposites. Repulsion and attraction, coming nearer and going far... these are the rhythms.

Tantra uses the word "sex" wherever the opposites meet. It is a sexual phenomenon. And how to make your inner opposites meet, is the whole purpose of meditation. So all these hundred and twelve methods are sexual. There cannot be anything else, there is no possibility. But try to understand the wideness of the term "sex".

The second question:

YOU SAID THAT EXISTENCE IS A WHOLENESS, THAT EVERYTHING IS RELATED, THAT THINGS ARE MELTING INTO EACH OTHER, THAT THE TREE CANNOT BE WITHOUT THE SUN AND THE SUN ALSO CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THE TREE. IN REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW IGNORANCE AND ENLIGHTENMENT ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER.

They are related. Enlightenment and ignorance are two polar opposites. Enlightenment can exist only because there is ignorance. If ignorance disappeared from the world, enlightenment would disappear simultaneously. But because of our dualistic thinking we always think that opposites are opposites. They are complementary, they are not really opposite. They are complementary because one cannot exist without the other. So they are not enemies. Birth and death are not enemies because death cannot exist if there is no birth. Birth creates the base for death to exist but if there were no death, birth could not exist.

Death creates the base -- so whenever someone is dying, someone else is being born. At one point there is death, at the next point immediately there is birth. They look opposite, they work in opposition as far as the surface is concerned, but deep down they are friends helping each other. It is easy to understand about ignorance and enlightenment because we think that when a man becomes enlightened, ignorance has disappeared completely. This is the ordinary standpoint about enlightenment -- that ignorance has disappeared completely. No. That is not right. Rather, on the contrary, when a person becomes enlightened, enlightenment and ignorance have both disappeared. Because if one is there the other is bound to be there; one cannot exist without the other. They exist together or they disappear together. They are aspects of one thing, two faces of one coin. You cannot make one face of the coin disappear and retain the other.

So when a person becomes a Buddha, really, at that moment both have disappeared -- ignorance and enlightenment both. Just consciousness is left, pure being is left, and the conflicting, opposing, helping opposites have disappeared. That is why when Buddha is asked what happens to an enlightened man, he remains silent many times. He says, "Don't ask this because whatsoever I say will be untrue. Whatsoever I say will be untrue. If I say that he has become silent it means the opposite of silence must exist there, otherwise how can you feel silence? If I say he has become blissful, then anguish must exist side by side. How can you feel bliss without anguish?" Buddha says, "Whatsoever I say will be untrue." So he remains consistently silent about the state of an enlightened person, because all our terms are dual. If you say light, and if someone insists, "Define it," how are you going to define it? You will have to bring darkness in, only then can you define it. You will say that light is where darkness is not -- or something like that.

One of the greatest thinkers of the world, Voltaire, used to say that you can communicate only if you define your terms first. But that is impossible. If you have to define light, you will have to bring darkness in. And then if it is asked what darkness is, you will have to define it by light, which is undefined. All definitions are circular. They used to say, "What is mind?" and the definition was, "Not matter." And, "What is matter?" and the definition was, "Not mind." Both terms are undefined and you are playing a trick with yourself. You define one term by another term which itself needs definition. The whole language is circular and the opposite is necessary.

So Buddha says, "I will not even say that the enlightened person exists." Because existence is possible only if non-existence is also present. So, he will not even say that you exist after enlightenment, because existence has to be defined by non-existence. Nothing can be said then because all language consists of the polar opposite. That is why in the Upanishads it is said that if someone says that he is enlightened, know well that he is not. Because how can he feel that he is enlightened? Some ignorance must have remained because a contrast is needed.

If you write on a blackboard with white chalk -- the blacker the board the whiter will be the writing. You cannot write on a white board with white chalk. If you do, there will be no writing. The contrast is needed. If you feel that you are enlightened that shows that the blackboard is right there -- only then could you feel it. If the blackboard has really disappeared, the writing would have also disappeared. It happens simultaneously. So a Buddha is neither ignorant nor wise, he simply is. You cannot put him on any pole of any duality. Both the poles have disappeared.

When they disappear how does it happen? When both poles meet they negate each other and disappear. In another way you can say Buddha is both the most ignorant person and the most enlightened. The polarity has come to its extreme point, there has been a meeting, and the meeting has cancelled both. The minus and plus have come together. Now there is neither minus nor plus, because they cancel each other. The minus has cancelled the plus and the plus has cancelled the minus, they have both disappeared and a pure being, an innocent being is left. You cannot say it is wise, you cannot say it is ignorant -- or, you can say it is both.

Enlightenment means the point from where you take a jump into the non-dual. Before that point is duality. Everything is divided.

Someone asked Buddha, "Who are you?" He laughed and said, "It is difficult to say." But the man insisted. He said something can be said because you are. Something meaningful can be asserted because you are. But Buddha said, "Nothing can be said. I am, but even to say this leads me into untruth." Then the man took another route. He asked "Are you a man or a woman?" Buddha said,"It is difficult to say. Once I was a man, but then my whole being was attracted towards women. When I was a man, my mind was filled with women, and when women disappeared from my mind, my man also disappeared with them. Now I cannot say. I don't know who I am and it is difficult to define."

When duality is no more, nothing can be defined. So if you are aware that you have become wise it means that foolishness persists. If you think that you have become blissful, it means that you are still in the world, in the realm of anguish. If you say that you feel a very deep well-being, a health, that means that disease is still possible. The opposite will follow you; if you carry one the other will follow. You have to drop both. And the dropping happens when both meet. So the basic science of all religion is how to allow your inner opposites to meet so that they disappear and not a trace is left. You will disappear with the disappearance of the opposite. You as you are will no longer be there and something totally new and unknown, something unimaginable, will come into being. That something is called Brahma, you can call it God. Buddha prefers the term "nirvana". The word "nirvana" simply means cessation of all that was, total cessation of the past. And you cannot use your past experience and knowledge to define this new. This new is indefinable.

Ignorance and enlightenment are also part of duality. For us Buddha looks enlightened because we are in ignorance. For Buddha himself he is neither. It is impossible for him to think in terms of duality.

The third question:

WILL YOU PLEASE TELL US WHY KRISHNAMURTI IS AGAINST TECHNIQUES, WHEREAS SHIVA IS FOR SO MANY TECHNIQUES.

Being against techniques is simply a technique. Not only Krishnamurti is using that technique, it has been used many times before. It is one of the oldest techniques, nothing is new about it.

Two thousand years ago Bodhidharma used it. He introduced into China what is now known as Chan or Zen-Buddhism. He was a Hindu monk, a monk from India. He believed in no-technique. Zen is based on no-technique. Zen masters say that if you do something you will miss, because who will do? You? You are the disease, and out of you nothing else can be born. Who will make the effort? Your mind, and your mind has to be destroyed -- and you cannot destroy the mind itself with help from the mind. Whatsoever you do, your mind will be more strengthened.

So Zen says there is no technique, no method, there is no scripture and there can be no guru. But the beauty is that Zen has created the greatest of gurus and Zen masters have written the best scriptures in the world. And through Zen thousands and thousands of people attained nirvana -- but they say there is no technique.

So it has to be understood that no-technique is really one of the foundational techniques. The emphasis is on "no" so that your mind is negated. Mind can have two attitudes -- yes or no. These are the two possibilities, the two alternatives, just as they are in everything. No is the feminine and yes is the male. So you can use the method of no, or you can use the method of yes. If you follow the method of yes, then there are many methods -- but you have to say yes and there can be many yes's. If you follow no, then there are not many methods, only one, because there cannot be many no's.

Look at this point: there are so many religions in the world, so many types of theists. There are at least three hundred religions in existence right now. So theism has three hundred temples, churches, scriptures. But there is only one type of atheism, there cannot be two. Atheists have no sects. When you say there is no God, the thing is finished. You cannot differentiate between two no's, you cannot make any difference. But when you say,"Yes there is God," then there is a possibility of difference. Because my yes will create my own God and your yes will create your own God. Your yes may be said to Jesus, my yes may be said to Krishna -- but when you say no, then all no's are similar. That is why on the earth there are no sects in atheism.

Atheists are all alike. They don't have any scripture, they don't have any church. When they don't have any positive attitude there is nothing to differ about, a simple no is enough. The same has happened about techniques: no has only one technique, yes has one hundred and twelve, or many more even are possible. You can create new combinations.

Someone has said that the method I teach, the dynamic method of meditation, is not included in these one hundred and twelve methods. It is not included because it is a new combination, but all that is in it is there in the hundred and twelve methods. Some parts are in one technique, some other part is in some other technique. These hundred and twelve are the basic methods. You can create thousands out of them. There is no end to it. Any number of combinations is possible.

But those who ay there is no method can have only one method. You cannot create much out of no. So Bodhidharma, Lin Chi, Bokuju, Krishnamurti, have only one method. Really Krishnamurti comes just after a succession of Zen masters. He is talking Zen. Nothing is new about it. But Zen always looks new, and the reason is because Zen doesn't believe in scriptures, doesn't believe in tradition, doesn't believe in techniques.

So whenever no arises again it is fresh and new. Yes believes in tradition, in scriptures, in masters. Whenever yes is there, it will have a long beginningless tradition. Those who have said yes, Krishna or Mahavir, they go on saying that they are not saying anything new. Mahavir says,"Before me twenty-three TEERTHANKARAS have taught the same." And Krishna says, "Before me, this seer gave this message to that seer, that seer gave the message to that and it has been coming down. I am not saying anything new."

Yes will always be old, eternal. No will always look new, as if it has suddenly come into being. No cannot have traditional roots. It is unrooted. That is why Krishnamurti looks new. He is not.

What is this technique of "denying technique"? It can be used. It is one of the subtlest ways to kill and destroy the mind. Mind tries to cling to something that is a support; mind needs support to be there, it cannot exist in a vacuum. So it creates many types of supports -- churches, scriptures, Bible, Koran, Gita -- then it is happy, there is something to cling to. But then with this clinging the mind remains.

This technique of no-technique insists on destroying all supports. So it will insist that there is no scripture. No Bible can be of help because the Bible is nothing but words; no Gita can be of any help because whatsoever you come to know through Gita will be borrowed, and truth cannot be borrowed. No tradition is of any help because truth has to be achieved authentically, individually. You have to come to it, it cannot be transferred to you. No master can give it to you because it is not something like property. It is not transferable, it cannot be taught because it is not information. If a master teaches you, you can learn only words, concepts, doctrines. No master can make you a realized one. That realization has to happen to you and it has to happen without any help. If it happens through some help then it is dependent and then it cannot lead you to ultimate freedom, to MOKSHA.

These are the parts of this no-technique. Through these criticisms, negations and arguments, supports are destroyed. Then you are left alone with no guru, no scripture, no tradition, no church, nowhere to move, nowhere to go, nowhere to be dependent. You are left in a vacuum. And really, if you can conceive of this vacuum and are ready to be in it, you will be transformed. But mind is very cunning. If Krishnamurti says to you that these are things -- no support, no clinging, no master, no scripture, no technique -- you will cling to Krishnamurti. There are many clinging to him. The mind has again created a support and then the whole point is lost.

Many people come to me and they say, "Our minds are in anguish. How to come to the inner peace, how to attain the inner silence?" And if I give them some technique they say, "But techniques cannot help because we have been listening to Krishnamurti." Then I ask them, "Then why have you come to me? And what do you mean when you ask, `How to attain silence?' You are asking for a technique and you are still going to listen to Krishnamurti. Why? If there is no master and if the real cannot be taught, then why are you going on listening to him? He cannot teach you anything. But you go on listening to him and you are being aught. And you have now started to cling to this no-technique. So whenever someone gives you technique, you will say, `No, we don't believe in techniques.' And you are still not silent. So what has happened? Where have you missed the train? If you really need no-technique, if you don't have any technique -- you must have attained. But you have not attained."

The basic point has been missed; the basic point is that for this no-technique technique to work you must destroy all support, you must not cling to anything. And it is very arduous. It is almost impossible. That is why so many people for these last forty years have been listening to Krishnamurti but nothing has happened to them. It is so arduous and difficult, almost impossible to remain unsupported, to remain totally alone and to be alert that the mind is not allowed to create any support. Because mind is very cunning, it can create subtle supports again and again. You may throw away Gita, but then you fill the space with Krishnamurti's books. You may laugh at Mohammed, you may laugh at Mahavir, but if someone laughs at Krishnamurti you get angry. Again in a roundabout way you have created a support, you are clinging.

Non-clinging is the secret of this method. If you can do it, it is good; if you cannot do it, then don't deceive. Then there are methods. Use them! Then be clear that you cannot be alone so you will take someone's help. Help is possible. Through help also, transformation is possible.

These are the opposites -- no and yes, these are opposites. You can move from either but you must decide about your own mind and its working. If you feel that you can be alone....

Once it happened that when I was staying in a village a man came and he said to me, "I am confused. My family is trying to arrange a marriage for me." He was a young man, just fresh from university. He said, "I don't want to be involved in all that. I want to become a SANNYASIN, I want to renounce all. So what is your advice?" I told him, "I never went to ask anybody, but you have come to take my advice. When you have come to take advice it shows that you need support, that you need. It will be difficult for you to live without a wife. That too is a support,"

You cannot live without a wife, you cannot live without your husband, but you think you can live without a guru? Impossible! Your mind needs support in every way. Why do you go to Krishnamurti? You go to learn, you go to be taught, you go to borrow knowledge. Otherwise there is no need. Many times it has happened that friends will say, "It would be good if you and Krishnamurti meet." So I tell them, "You go and ask Krishnamurti and if he wants to meet, I will come. But what is going to be there? What will we do? What will we talk about? We can remain silent. What is the need? But they say, "It would be good if you both meet. It would be good for us. We will be happy to listen to what you say."

So I tell them a story.

Once it happened that a Mohammedan mystic, Farid, was traveling. When they came near the village of Kabir, another mystic, the followers of Farid said that it would be very good if they both meet. And when it became known to Kabir's disciples, they also insisted that, As Farid was passing, they should invite him in. So Kabir said, "It is okay." Farid also said, "It is okay. We will go, but don't say anything when I enter Kabir's hut, remain quite silent."

For two days Farid stayed in Kabir's hut. There was total silence. They sat silently for two days and then Kabir came to the edge of his village to give a send-off to Farid -- and in silence they departed. The moment they departed the followers of both started asking. The followers of Kabir asked him, "What was this? It became a boredom. You were sitting silently for two days, not even a single word was spoken, and we were so eager to hear." Farid's followers also said, "What was this? It seems weird. For two days continuously we were watching and watching and waiting and waiting for something to come out of this meeting. But nothing came out."

Farid is reported to have said, "What do you mean? Two persons who know, cannot talk; two persons who don't know, can talk much, but it is useless, even harmful. The only possibility is one person who knows, talking to one who doesn't know" And Kabir said,"Whoever uttered a single word would have proved that he didn't know."

The last question:

YOU SAID THAT SHIVA IS NOT A SYSTEM-MAKER AND SECTS CANNOT FORM AROUND HIS TEACHINGS. BUT PERSONS LIKE BUDDHA, MAHAVIR, JESUS, GURDJIEFF, SEEM TO BE GREAT SYSTEM-MAKERS. WHY DO THEY HAVE TO BE SYSTEM-MAKERS? PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PRO'S AND CON'S OF SYSTEM-MAKING. ARE YOU A MULTI-SYSTEM-MAKER?

There are two possibilities: you can create a system to help people, create multi-systems to help people, or the other, you can try to destroy systems to help people. Again the yes and no. Again the polar opposites. And in both ways you can help people.

Bodhidharma is a system-destroyer, Krishnamurti is a system-destroyer, the whole tradition of Zen is system-destroying. Mahavir, Mohammed, Jesus, Gurdjieff, are great system-makers. The problems is always that we cannot understand these two contradictory things simultaneously together: we think that either one can be right but both cannot be. If system-makers are right, then our mind says that system-destroyers must be wrong. Or if the system-destroyers are right, then system-makers must be wrong. No, both are right.

A system means a pattern to follow, a clear-cut map to follow so that no doubt arises, no indecisiveness arises and you can follow with absolute faith. Remember this: a system is created to create faith, to create trust. If everything is clear, then there will be trust more easily. If all your questions are answered mathematically, then you will be in a state of no doubt and you can proceed. So sometimes Mahavir answers your absurd questions also. They are futile questions, meaningless, but he will answer. And he will answer in such a way that it helps you to have trust, because that quality of trust is needed.

When someone tries to penetrate into the unknown a deep trust is needed otherwise it will be impossible to move. It will be so dangerous you will get scared. It is dark, the path is not clear, everything is chaos and every step leads you into more and more insecurity. Hence system-making is needed so that everything is planned: you know everything about heaven and hell and the ultimate moksha, and from where you will move, from where you will pass. Every inch has been mapped. That gives you a security, a feeling, that everything is okay. People have been there before and you are not moving into a no-man's land, you are not moving into the unknown. A system makes it appear as if it is known. That is to help you, just to give you support. And if you have faith then you will have energy to move. If you are doubtful, you will dissipate energy and movement will be difficult.

System-makers have tried to answer all types of questions and they have created a neat and clean map. With that map in your hand you feel everything is okay, you can proceed. But I tell you, every system is just artificial. Every system is just to help you. It is not true. No system can be true. It is a device. But it helps because your whole personality is so untrue that even untrue devices help. You live in lies and you cannot understand truth. A system means less lies and then even less lies and then by and by, by and by, you will come nearer and nearer to the truth. When the truth is revealed to you the system will become meaningless, it will simply drop.

When Sariputta became enlightened, came to the ultimate goal, he looked back from that point and saw that the whole system had disappeared. Whatsoever he had been taught was not there. So he said to Buddha, "The whole system that was taught to me has disappeared." Buddha said to him, "Keep silent, don't tell the others! It has disappeared, it has to disappear because it was never there, it was a make-believe -- but it helped you to come to this point. Don't tell those who have not come yet, because if they know that there is no knowledge where they are going to they will drop. They cannot go into the unknown unguarded, alone they cannot go."

It happens many times. It has been my own experience that people come to me and they say, "Now meditation is going deep but we are scared." An ultimate feeling is bound to come when you feel a "dying" fear, as if death is approaching near. When meditation comes to its peak it is death-like. I tell them, "Don't worry, I am with you." Then they feel okay. I cannot be there -- impossible! No one can be there. This is untrue. No one can be there, you will be alone. That point is one of total aloneness. But when I say, "I will be there, you don't worry, you go ahead," they feel okay and they move. If I say, "You will be alone and no one is going to be there," they will step back. The point has come where fear is bound to be there. The abyss is there and they are going to fall -- I must help them to fall. So I say that I am there, you just take the jump. And they take the jump! After the jump they will come to know that no one was there, but now, now the whole thing is finished. They cannot come back. This is a device.

All systems are devices to help: to help people who are full of doubts, to help people who have no trust, to help people who have no confidence. To help people to move into the unknown without fear, systems are created. In those systems everything is just like a myth, that is why there are so many systems. Mahavir creates his own -- that system is created according to the needs of his followers. So he creates a system. It is a myth, but very helpful, because many moved through it and reached to the truth. And when they reached they knew that the system was false -- but it worked.

Buddha defines truth as "That which works". His definition of truth is "That which works". If a lie can work, it is true, and if a truth cannot work, it is false.

There are so many systems, and every system helps. But every system cannot help everybody. That is why the old religions insisted that a person should not be converted into a new religion, because although the mind can after a time be conditioned in a system and can be changed, deep down you will never change, and a new system will never become useful for you. A Hindu can become a Christian, a Christian can become a Hindu, but after the age of seven the mind is almost fixed, conditioned. so if a Hindu becomes a Christian he will remain a Hindu deep down and the Christian system will not help him. And he has lost contact with his own system which might have worked.

Hindus and Jews have always been against conversion. Not only against conversion -- if someone wants to enter into their religion voluntarily, they will resist. They will say, "No, follow your own path." Because a system is a great unconscious phenomenon; it has to be deep in the unconscious, only then can it help. Otherwise it cannot help and it is an artificial thing. It is just like language. You can never speak any language as you speak your mother-tongue, it is impossible. Nothing can be done about it. Howsoever efficient you become in somebody else's language it will remain superficial. Deep down your mother-tongue will continue to influence it. Your dreams will be in your mother-tongue; the unconscious will function with the original language. Anything can be imposed on and above it, but it cannot be replaced.

Religious systems are like language, they are language. But if they penetrate deep, they help because you feel confident. The system is irrelevant but the confidence is relevant. You feel trusting so you move with a sure step -- you know where you are moving. And this knowing helps.

But there are system-destroyers also and they also help. There is a rhythmic circle, just like day and night -- again day comes, again night comes. They help because sometimes it happens that when there are so many systems people get confused, and rather than moving with the maps, the maps become so heavy that they cannot carry them. It happens always.

For example, a tradition, a very long tradition, is helpful because it will give confidence because it is so long. But because it is so long it is heavy also, it has become a dead weight. So rather than helping you to move, you cannot move because of it. You have to be unburdened. So there are system-destroyers who destroy the system from your mind and unburden you and help you to move. They both help, but it depends. It depends on the age, it depends on the person who is to be helped.

In this age systems have become very heavy and confused. For many reasons the whole point has been lost. Before, each system lived in its own world: a Jain was born Jain, lived Jain, died Jain. He did not study Hindu scriptures, it was prohibited. He did not go to the mosque or the church, that was a sin. He lived in the walls of his system. Nothing alien ever penetrated his mind, so no confusion was there.

But all that has been destroyed and everyone is acquainted with everything else. Hindus are reading the Koran and Mohammedans are reading the Gita. Christians are moving to the East and the East is moving to the West. Everything is confused. The confidence that used to come from a system is no longer there. Everything has penetrated your mind and things are jumbled up. Jesus is not alone there, Krishna has penetrated and Mohammed has also penetrated. And they have contradicted each other within you. Now nothing is certain.

The Bible says this, the Gita says exactly the contrary. Mohammed says this, Mahavir is just the opposite. They have contradicted. You are no longer anywhere. You don't belong, you are simply standing there confused. No path is yours. In such a state of mind, system-destroying can be helpful. Hence the great appeal of Krishnamurti in the West. He does not have so much appeal in the East because the East is still not as confused as the West, because the East is still not as educated about others. The West is obsessed about knowing about others. They know too much. Now no system is real, they know that everything is a make-believe, and once you know it, it will not work.

Krishnamurti appeals to them because he says leave all systems. If you can leave all systems you will become unconfused -- but it depends on you. It may happen, as it happens almost always, that all the systems will remain there and this new system of destroying all systems will also enter. So one more disease is added.

Jesus goes on speaking, Krishna goes on speaking -- and then Krishnamurti also enters. Your mind becomes the Tower of Babel -- so many tongues and you cannot understand what is happening. You just feel crazy.

If you can believe in a system, so far so good; if you cannot believe in any system, then drop all. Then be completely clean, unburdened. But don't be just in the middle of these two alternatives. And it appears that everyone is just in the middle. Sometimes you move to the right, sometimes to the left, then again to the right and then to left -- just like the pendulum of a clock. You go from this side to that, this side to that. This movement may appear to you that you are proceeding. You are not proceeding anywhere. Every step cancels some other step, because when you move to the right and then to the left you go on contradicting yourself. In the end you are just confused, puzzled, a chaos.

Either be unburdened completely -- that will be helpful. You will be clean, innocent, childlike, and you can fly -- or if that understanding seems too dangerous to you, if you are afraid of unburdening because that will lead you into a vacuum, into an emptiness, if that unburdening looks dangerous and you are scared, then choose a system. But there are many who go on saying to you that everything is the same -- the Koran says the same, the Bible says the same, the Gita says the same, their message is the same. These people are the great confusers. The Koran, the Bible, the Gita, they don't say the same, they are systems. Clear-cut systems. Different. Not only different, but sometimes contradictory and opposite.

For example, Mahavir says that non-violence has to be the key. If you are violent, even slightly violent, the door of ultimate reality is closed for you. This is a technique. To become totally non-violent needs a complete cleansing of your mind and body -- both. You have to be purified completely, only then will you become non-violent. This process of becoming no-violent will purify you so totally that the very process will become the end.

Just the opposite is Krishna's message. He says to Arjuna, "Don't be afraid of killing because the soul cannot be killed. You can kill the body but you cannot kill the soul. So why be afraid? And the body is already dead, so that which is dead will be dead and that which is alive will remain alive. You need not be concerned. It is just a play." He is also right, because if you can come to realize this point -- that the soul cannot be destroyed -- then the whole life becomes a play, a fiction, a drama. And if the whole life becomes a drama, even murder and suicide become a drama to you, not just in thinking, but you realize the fact that everything is just a dream. Death too will make you a witness, and that witnessing will become transcendence... you will transcend the world. The whole world becomes a drama -- there is nothing good, nothing bad, just a dream. You need not worry about it.

But these two things are totally different. They lead to the same point ultimately but you should not mix them. If you mix them, you will suffer. System-makers have been there to help you, system-destroyers have been there to help you. But it seems that no one has been able to help. You are such, so adamant and so cunning, you always find some loopholes to escape through.

Buddha and Krishna and Jesus -- every century they go on teaching certain things. You go on listening but you are very clever. You listen and yet you don't listen. And you always find something, some hole, from where you can escape. Now the trick of the modern mind is that if there is a system, if Gurdjieff is teaching, then people will go to him and say, "Krishnamurti says no system." These same people will go to Krishnamurti -- Krishnamurti teaches no-system -- and they will say, "But Gurdjieff says that without a system nothing can be done." So while near Gurdjieff they use Krishnamurti as a loophole to escape; while near Krishnamurti they use Gurdjieff as a trick to escape. But they are not deceiving anybody, they are simply destroying themselves.

Gurdjieff can help, Krishnamurti can help, but they cannot help against you. You must be certain about certain things. One, either you need help or you don't need it. Second, either you can move into the unknown without any fear or you cannot. And third, without any method, without any technique, without any system, can you proceed a single inch or can't you? These three things you have to decide within you: analyze your mind, open it, look into it and decide what type of mind you have got. If you decide that you cannot do it alone then you need a system, a master, a scripture, a technique. If you think that you can do alone then there is no need for anything else. You are the master, you are the scripture, you are the technique. But be honest, and if you feel that it is impossible to decide -- it is not easy to decide -- if you feel confused, then first try a master, a technique, a system. And try it hard, to the very extreme, so that if something is going to happen, it happens. If nothing is going to happen then you come to a point where you can decide that now you will have all, you will be alone. That too will be good.

But my suggestion is that you should always start with a master, a system, a technique, because in both ways it will be good. If you can achieve through it, it is good; if you cannot achieve through it, then the whole thing becomes futile and you can drop it and then you can proceed alone. Then you will not need Krishnamurti to tell you that no master is needed, you will know it. Then you will not need any Zen teaching to tell you to throw away your scriptures and burn them, you will have already burned them.

So it is good to proceed with a master, with a system, with a technique -- but be sincere. When I say be sincere I mean that you should do whatsoever you can do with a master, so that if something can happen, it happens. If nothing can happen, then you can conclude that this is not the path for you and you can move alone.