Transcription
What is enlightenment? Again, this is one of those words that have come from India - to be enlightened. To be enlightened about what? Please, let's be rational, not irrational. When we say 'enlightened', I am enlightened about what? Say, for instance, I am enlightened about my relationship with another. That is, I have understood my relationship with another is based on my image, about the other, however intimate. That image has been put together through many years by constant reaction, indifference, comfort - you follow? The nagging, all that between man and woman, all that. So the image is built, and she has built an image about you, so the relationship is between the two images, which is obvious. And that is what we call relationship.
Now, I perceive the truth of it and say, "I am enlightened about it." I am enlightened about violence. I see clearly without any distortion, with clear eyes, the whole movement of violence. I see how sorrow arises, and the ending of sorrow is, I am enlightened about it. But we don't mean that, right? We mean something else. "I am enlightened, I will tell you about it. Come to me." And you, rather gullible, say, "Yes, tell me all about it." Sir, I don't want to go into all this. I don't know if you are interested in it. You see, we must understand, if we really go into what is enlightenment, illumination, the voice of truth, not my voice, the voice of truth, we must go very carefully into the question of time.
The so-called enlightened people have come to it through time, gradually, life after life, if you believe in reincarnation. I have come to the point when I am enlightened about everything, right? Which is, it is a gradual process of experience, knowledge, a constant movement from the past to the present and the future, the cycle, right? So, if you are interested in it, is enlightenment the ultimate thing - a matter of time? Is it... (Sound of train) I hope you aren't bored by this, are you? Is it a gradual process, which means the process of time, the process of evolution, the gradual becoming that? You follow?
So, one must understand the nature of time, not the chronological time, but the psychological structure which has accepted time. You are following this? That is, I have hope to ultimately get there. The desire, which is part of hope, ultimately says, "I will get there." And the so-called enlightened people, and they are not, because the moment they say, "I am enlightened," they are not. That is their vanity. It is like a man saying, "I am really humble." When a man says that, you know what it is. Humility is not the opposite of vanity. When the vanity ends, the other is.
Those people who have said, "We are enlightened," say you must go through step by step: practice this, do that, don't do this, become my pupil, I'll tell you what to do, I'll give you an Indian name or a Christian new name, and so on, so on, so on. And you, a kind of irrational human being, accept this nonsense. So, we are saying, asking, is that supreme enlightenment, you understand the meaning of that word? A mind that has no conflict, no sense of striving, going, moving, achieving.
So, we must understand this question of time, which is the constant becoming, or not becoming, which is the same, right? The becoming and the not becoming. And when that becoming is rooted in the mind, that becoming conditions all your thinking, all your activity, then it is a matter of using time as a means of becoming, achieving. But is there such a thing as becoming? You understand? "I am violent. I will be non-violent." That is, becoming an idea, right? I am violent, and the non-violence I project, the idea of not being violent, so I create duality. Violent and non-violent, and so there is conflict. Then I say, "I must control myself, I must suppress, I must analyze, I must go to a psychologist, I must have a psychotherapist," and so on, so on, so on.
Without creating the opposite, the non-violence, the fact is violence, not non-violence, right? The fact. The non-violence is non-fact. If you get that once, the truth of that. That is, I am violent, the concept of non-violence brings about this conflict between the opposites. The non-fact has no value, only the fact, which is, I am violent. Now, to observe the whole movement of violence: anger, jealousy, hate, competition, imitation, conformity, and so on, so on, to observe it without any direction, without any motive, right? Then, if you do that, then there is the end of violence, which is an immediate perception and action. I wonder if you understand this. Bene? Hai capito?
So, one can see that illumination, this sense of ultimate reality and so on, is not of time. This goes against the whole psychological religious world, the Christians with their souls, with their saviors. We say perception is action, not perception, great interval, and then action. In that interval, you create the idea, right? Are you following all this? Sir, we are pointing out something which is: Can the mind, the brain, you know, the whole human nervous structure as well as the psychological structure, be free of this burden of a million years of time, so that you see something clearly, and action is invariably immediate? That action will be rational, not irrational. That action can be explained logically, sanely. So, we are saying that ultimate thing, which is truth, is not to be achieved through time. It can never be achieved. It is there, or it is not there.