The Real Saint looks more like a heretic or a lunatic than a saint || Acharya Prashant (2016)
Acharya Prashant: The myth of the Saint, the Saint!
And with, the myth of the Saint we would be able to touch many associated myths. Like the myth of the respect: respectability rather, the myth of godliness. And of course Love!
When we use the word “Saint”, we use it obviously, inevitably in the same frame of mind. From the same center, as we use many other words.
Our language is a language of objects. Any and every words that we know refers to something; something that can be thought of; something that can be touched, conceptualized, seen, felt, hurt; something that is within the domain of the mental activity.
So the obvious result is that even when we use words like saint, God, Truth, freedom, joy, love they turn into objects due to the sheer fact of verbalization. Because you have put them into words, you have willingly or unwillingly turned them into objects. The same thing happens when we refer to the word “Saint”.
The Saint immediately becomes something material, a person, a person you can see, a person who is born, a person who will die, a person who can be hurt, and a person with a body. So for us, the Saint is a person and if Saint is to be person, he had to be special person to be called by the special name called “Saint”.He must have special characteristics.
And, how do we know those characteristics?
Just as our language is material, similarly the characteristics that we will accord to this special person called “Saint” must be all very material characteristics.
What kind of characteristics do we associate with the Saint?
Remember that whatever you will now state will be necessarily something that can be registered by the mind, that can be spoken of, that can be conceptualized.
You want to know whether or not a person is fit to be called a saint. How do you decide? Because we do refer to a few people as “Saints”. How do you decide that somebody is a saint?
L: One of his physical attributes or behavior.
Acharya Prashant: The physical attributes; the behavior. And here we give the simple and direct answers. I appreciate this one! But can we go little deeper into it.How do you know that somebody is a saint? Mostly, you don’t even need to know. Mostly, the one we refers to as “Saints”, are the ones who have been in advance declared saints by somebody else, by some authority. So you don’t even need to determine.
How far have we come? We have said first of all that like all other words in our dictionary, the word “Saint” too becomes materialized and hence it starts referring to a person. And when we said, “It start referring to a person” we said a special kind of person because our saint is special.
And now we are saying that, “That special person has special characteristics” and our friend here had said that they are all physical characteristics or at least some of them are physical characteristics.What are those physical characteristics? How do you identify a “Saint”? And don’t let’s give intellectual answers.
L: What about who is speaking the Truth?
AP : And how do you know the truth?
L: Especially visual
AP: Usually it happens the other way out, usually you say the truth is that, the saint speaks. We have no direct way to know the truth but we have a direct way of identifying a saint, which is through its physical attributes. So whatever the saint says, it must be the truth. Let us accept that!
Do we have the direct relationship with the Truth? If you have direct relationship with the truth, then you can use Truth as a test. Then you can say that if that person is an expression of the Truth, then he deserves to be called a “Saint”. Had we had a direct relation with the Truth, then why would we have called a person a saint?
What are these physical attributes to begin with? How do you immediately point? Oh! A “Saint”. And that does not require too much effort. Right! That is happening with us continuously, very frequently.
L1: Saffron Clothes.
AP : Saffron clothes and?
L2: I had someone in Rishikesh, who had seen somebody a saint as you said ten people following one man walking wearing kurta, long hair and calm look on his face.
AP: Calm look on the face. What kind of look? Can you show us that look?
L2: To be calmness.
AP: Nice! (Making expression of saint)
L2: And never get sad about anything. He is so happy about being in the world.
AP: A gentle smile!
L2: Of course! A gentle smile, flawless forehead.
AP: Flawless forehead not open at all.
L2: Bright eyes.
AP: Bright eyes! (Showing by an expression)
L2: Enjoying all the attention of the ten people around. (All Ls are laughing on AP’s expression)
He is speaking about love and he is talking about totally delight, staying here with compose voice and completely with the belief that whatever he is saying is ultimate Truth. And rest everybody is, “Yes, Yes.” We are fools here, 35-40 years of life is just screwed up.
AP: If it was so easy to figure out that this is what qualifies a man to look like a saint, then surely it is not only who you who know that. Even the fellow who is acting as the saint knows this very well.
L2: Of course!
AP: Which means it is very easy to act as a saint. Everybody knows what you can do to be called a saint. And isn’t it horrible that we have really no other reliable way of knowing whether or not a person is fit to be called a saint. Whether or not a saint is actually a person that we take up later on.But assuming that the saints are persons, I want to explore whether we have a way, a solid way, a reliable way to figure out who is saint.
L: But it is always there that in the presence of the saint, the mind becomes silent. We don’t bother much about other things.
AP: You said that, “In the presence of the saint, the mind becomes silent.” How has the saint been present in front of you?
L: Not being personal.
AP: Always as saint. Right! Sitting on the podium, walking like that and behaving like that. Now if the same person is wearing the regular civilian dress…
L: And you see him in a pub.
AP: And you see him in the pub and in the train compartment sitting next to you. Would you feel the same peace? And he is not declaring that he is the saint.
Is your silence, so-called “silence” is real?
L: Conditioning of mind.
AP: It is the conditioning of the mind that when that saffron clothed man with the beard and that look, comes in front of me. What do I have to do?
I have to feel silence.
Otherwise if there was something about the body, then you would have felt silence even in your sleep. You are sleeping and the same passes by. And your dreams and the agitation contented them should have been washed.
But it is only when in the waking state, we are conscious that such and such persona is hovering around. Then the old conditioning tells you, “Ah! A saintly figure and representative of God, I owed to feel nice about it.”
I am asking you to visualize that fellow is in a grocery store, not wearing any specific attire, not acting saintly, not followed by his entourage.
L: Where the energy goes?
AP: Where does the energy go?
L: It lay by.
AP: And he/she is just like an ordinary person there purchasing tea bags. Would you still free a great silence on receiving his “*Darshan*”?
L: He does not, it depends on his internal state. How can we know?
AP: You cannot know because you think you haven’t been close to such persons only in their regular civilian ways. You see what happens is that you remember only those occasions when they have come in front of you in their specific attire. When they don’t come in front of you in specific attire, you don’t even identify them. Not only you don’t identify them, also there is no question of any special experience of peace or silence.
Who is the Saint? Somebody who behaves like a saint?
A saint is someone who behaves like a saint and that code of behavior is very well-known. If it is well known to you, then it is well known to all. Now I want to ask you and this is following from the discussion held in the morning, found it relevant so I am sharing.
Was Jesus behaving like a saint? Was he wearing a specific attire that is particular to saints?
L: Maybe he was.
AP: Was he?
L: Whatever Jesus was wearing, it was followed to be same dress later.
AP: Later. But, was Jesus emulating somebody, copying somebody? Was Jesus copying another Jesus?
L: He was the misfit in the society.
AP: Was he speaking from the podium? Or was he speaking from strong rocks, stones or any place that you will found? Was he even recognized as a saint?
L1: No.
L2: Many people followed him because it was the energy.
AP: It is happening today, then the entire city of Jerusalem did not feel any energy, they ordered death for him. Where was the energy then? When the man himself was present, then the entire city said death to him. Where was the question of feeling of that great silence and energy? Even one of his own disciples didn’t feel that energy, forget about the rest of the general population. He was betrayed by one of those who was very close to him. Not even a stranger; Judas, is disciple.
Was Krishna dressing like another Krishna?
Was Mahavir emulating somebody else’s nakedness?
Did any of them look like each other in the mannerism, behavior, dressing, way of talking, speaking?
L: Exactly this is what is happening. Somebody gets up and dress different to the society and he feels he is doing something different and his own people will start following him and there is another religious world and other religion is being formed.
AP: But they follow him only if first of all he looks like and acts like a saint. If what he stands for, if the entire message that his personality is radiating does not fit into the groove, into the framework, of what is accepted as saintliness then nobody will follow him. But I am asking that does the Kabir look and act like a Bulle Shah?
Does a Mira checkup how a Gargi used to dress up?
So the real ones and we are still assuming the saint as a person and we are saying that the real saint was always fresh. Not only in his core, but even in his expression. The real one expresses himself in a way which is totally fresh. Original!
And that is why he makes resistance; that is why it is difficult to accept him. That is one clear characteristics of the real saint. He would be himself arriving for the first time, which means that if somebody looks like a saint that alone is sufficient reason to know that he is not a saint.
I repeat this- “The real saint will never look like a saint. In fact, he would look like a heretic; he would look like a lunatic.”
L: He would not have followers also.
AP: That is another matter. The real ones are always so original that they never stranded at the end of any tradition, which means thatif somebody is claiming to belong to a tradition and acts and walks and speaks in ways that are easily detectable as saintly, then that alone is a good enough reason to discard him.
L: Who will discard him?
AP: We are talking about ourselves. Nothing else is more important than our own life: that is subject matter of all these sessions. The life that we are living.
L: Is there a possibility that maybe the person is still looking like a saint as we are framed and still is a saint.
AP: It has never happened that two realized men looked and talked alike. They were all very unique flowerings. It has neither happened at any time nor is it possible to happen again.
L: Why would you say that who looks like a saint, is not actually a saint?
AP: It is so, because you are unique. It is so, because you have not eaten the same food that he has eaten because you are not born out of the same father and mother that he was born. This uniqueness is the set of situations that have brought you up your whole evolutionary process. When your whole evolutionary process is different from others, it is obvious that the Truth will be expressed through you in not the same way as others. When your face is not the same as others; when your language and accent is not the same as others; when your height, your habits, your likes and dislikes are not the same as others, then how can be your rob and your MALA with the same as that of your neighborhood saint.
L: I would like to ask you about this, you are talking about the physical aspects.
AP: You said that the saint is known only through his physical aspects.
L: Yes that is what he said. If I said that the saint is in the same frame and he is actually a saint and we discard him because you said that, “somebody who is into that frame, cannot be a saint”. But the divine being, we are all divine being born from the same divine life, we are from the same source. We are all different, but eventually we are going and talking about the ultimate Truth; the ultimate Truth of spirituality which you are breaking to that.
AP: We will bring out to that. If you open so many things at one time, they all will get muddled up. So just walk along. Everything will be touched, everything will open, explored and reconciled.
L: But my first question is the same, the same task in the same frame.
AP: I am saying, “Has it ever happened? Does it ever happened?”
L: How could we know?
AP: Do you see it ever happening? How do you know anything?
AP: Don’t you find it amusing? That people are different in all ways possible. Their hair is different, their heights and weights are different. But when it comes to dawning saintliness, everybody knows what kind of attire goes. And not only, do they know even the followers know.
Don’t you find it strange?
L: Because maybe of that, because all the trust of the pattern gone away.
AP: Don’t you think that the dress itself is a pattern?
L: Yes.
AP: So stop saying that.
L: We comparing different people from the different regions of the world and different time like thousand years in the past. So they will look different, dress different, eat different.
AP: You can compare anybody; Buddha and Mahavir. They belong right to the same time, same region and same century. And yet they were so different in their expression. You don’t have to talk of people being thousands of year apart.
L: But they were all saying the same thing on that what we say.
AP: Forget about seeing the same thing, we are now talking about what constitutes saintliness in our eyes. We are talking about their persona, because the persona itself is unfortunately so important in the demarcation of saintliness.
L: But when they were in that time, they also came in that persona.
AP: Was Buddha’s persona the same as the persona of the Yagyawalkya.
L: So why we are comparing?
AP: Because here there is the comparison. How can there be similarity without comparison?
Understand this, If I am wearing what he wearing (repeatedly saying with pointing to Listeners), surely there has been an act of comparison already in place.
L: Aren’t we being too judgmental about it?
AP: Of course! We are being judgmental because it is an important thing.
L: It is we are talking about who is a saint? The question is who is a saint?
AP: Alright! Alright! Hold on. When you said, “Are we not being judgmental?” I give a very brief reply, “Yes we are being judgmental”.
L: Is that not right?
AP: That is very much right. Who told you that being judgmental is a problem?
L: Did we start-up there and we lose the basic?
AP: You won’t, if you allow us to move forward. You won’t be stuck.
We must remain a little more with this and let the absolute helplessness of our situation come to us. We respect somebody, we accord some status to somebody and we even live our life according to the way suggested by somebody. And we have no sure way of knowing whether he is actually a saint.
Do you see the terror contained in this?
You have put somebody on a podium, you are worshipping him and you do not even know whether he is worth it. You are allowing him to dominate your life, your consciousness. You are allowing him to mould your thoughts. And you don’t even know whether that ought to be the case. You have no original criteria, no yardsticks of your own to know. And that is inevitable, because had we had that yardstick: that eye, through which to know the real saint, we could have used that same eye to know the real “me”.
Just as I do not know really about myself, this muddled chaotic self. Similarly, I have no way of ascertaining whether a person in front of me, is a saint or not? And then I have no way of ascertaining anything, then I use what you called as “Rules of Thumb”. Then you use what you called as general indicators. But the general indicators cannot be relied upon in such grave matters of life and death.
A saint by definition stands for godliness.
You are talking of the immense; you are talking about that to which you accord the highest value. How can you accord the highest value to something, without being sure about it? How can you say that somebody stands as a proxy for God?
That godliness radiates through somebody, without being absolutely certain of it. Forget about being absolutely certain.
L: It is heart that knows.
AP: I again ask you, would that heart know in the grocery store?
L: Of course! It knows.
AP: Does it happen? Has it happened? Don’t imagine, answer as a fact. Have the saint give up all the markers that establish him as a saint and walk through the streets? And then let us see!
Don’t you see? That the ones who called themselves as a saint, presents themselves to you only in very limited time windows predetermined by them. You do not see them living, eating, walking like human beings. You see them in the theatre, on the appointed stage, in the time window prefixed by them. It’s a show that has been rehearsed well in advance. You only get to see what has been decided in advance to be shown.
Is that happening or not? Must be not pay attention to this as the matter of greatest importance. We find it important to check whether or not the vegetables that we are buying, are alright? We find it important to check that the simple medicines that we are buying, is not fake. Then it must not be important to check that the so-called person that you are following is real.
In matters involving ten rupees, we are so particular. But in matters that involve our total life, we act so very casual and cavalier. Is our life not worth even ten rupees?
Let this question stay. Let this question keep echoing. Shawl of his persona, Shawl of his words and his vocabulary. How would you know the person as a saint?
Let’s this simply stay with you. And when this question is with you, you must also check whether you have actually used that as a test ever. The mind is lazy, finds it much more convenient to follow the crowd.
Why take unnecessary risk? If something is being accepted as alright. If somebody has been certified as real, then why do I need to stick out my neck and verify on my own? It’s far easier to simple say that if thousand people are accepting him; the thousand people cannot be wrong. Far easier!
Now we are opening the second part.
Now this is the inevitable result of identifying sainthood with a person. Whenever you will call a person as a saint, you will have to depend on external markers. There is no other way, because the person can only been seen, touched, heard, felt and remembered. A person is material; a person is an entity within one’s sensory zone. So whenever you will associate saintliness or godliness with a person, you will have to depend upon something sensory about that person’s personality: his way of talking, a so-called “aura” around his face, a particular twinkle in the eyes; a particular kind of beards, obviously a particular kind of clothing or some other markers on forehead or somewhere.
It’s not a mistake! It’s inevitability, because there is no other way to know a person except by his looks. How do you know a person? How do you say that X is X and Y is Y? – By their looks. So if you associate saintliness with a person, then saintliness will have to necessarily be linked to looks.
If we are referring to the saint as a representative of the “beyond”, as somebody who brings news from a place that lies outside this sensory expanse, then we will have to first of all desist from calling any person as a saint. And that opens up tremendous possibilities.
If no person is a saint; if saintliness does not depends upon physical and sensory markers, then every person is possibly a saint because now the saintliness does not depend on person and personage at all.
Who is a person? – A person is restlessness, Truth trying hard to figure itself out. A person is the attempt to reach the truth and a person is the truth energizing that attempt.
The Saint is that within you which makes you to go to a saint.
I repeat –
“*The saint is that within you which makes you to go an external saint. The saint is that within you which suggests to you that something outside of your own personality is very important.” *
It is just that when that suggestion comes, we continue to look in our old ways. That something within us which tells that living as you are, acting as you are, behaving as you are, thinking as you are, planning as you are – you would remain restless. So find something beyond yourself. Now the instruction is to find something beyond yourself, and the mind interprets it in its own habitual way. The mind says –“Beyond myself means outside of me in space”. So it starts looking here and there in the world.
The saint is one’s own essence.
You can either have faith in it or show tremendous disrespect to it, but continuing to look outwards. The saint is not a particular person. When you are living by your core; by your center, you are the saint. And when you are wandering, lost you are back to what you called as normal – “the person”.
There is really no need to vest authority in any institution, person, book or entity outside of yourself because fundamentally nothing outside of you, any way exists. Allow yourself to be the saint, and you are home. Continue to believe that you are misled and you need to go to go an external entity and you would be holding on to the same belief. You are saying –“I am misled. I am incapable. I need to hear something from the other one.” What is your identity statement at this moment? What do you believe yourself to be?
You believe yourself to be the lost one. When the fundamental assumption itself is float, how can the outcome be right? You are starting from a point which is fictitious. You are saying I do not know, so I need to go to someone who knows. The more you go to someone who appears to know, the more you are establishing that you do not know. By establishing more and more that you do not know, will you get to know?
I repeat the question – Every time you are going to someone, who you believe, knows. You are going to him in the assumption that you do not know, and we are not talking of knowledge about the world. We are talking of self-knowledge. We are talking about knowing our own intimate matters. So you sit in front of so-called saint with the assumption that you do not know and he knows. The more you sit there, the more you are reinforcing this assumption and turning it into the virtual fact for yourself.
Is that helping you? Is there anybody here, who really does not know? I am asking you, “Is there anybody here, who really does not know?” And if you really do not know, how will you then suddenly come to know just through my words. We are able to communicate right now because you already know. You may not acknowledge it. We have been taught a certain sense of incompleteness and inferiority. And due to that, we find it tremendously difficult to acknowledge our own immensity; our own understanding. But don’t we really know?
How is it possible that certain words come to you and you are able to resonate so easily with them?
L: In life, he is presenting the reminders.
AP: Is life not presenting reminders to you every moment?
L: Yes, someone is nice to have stay
AP: You are the seed. You are the seed, you are the tree and you are the flowering; everything. You are right! If you are deeply believing that you have forgotten, you probably need some kind of a shock or reminder or a gentle touch.
But, I am asking you –“Is not life already offering enough of them?”
L: Yes, but we don’t have eyes to see it.
AP: If you start with the premise that you don’t have eyes, will you end up having eyes?
In the world of reality, the beginning is the end.
If you start from point X, you cannot reach point Y.
In the matters that really matter in the domain of spirituality – the first is the last. You do not begin rightly, you do not end rightly.
You begin by saying, “Oh! I am small. I am feeble one, how do I know?” Then you will stay a small, feeble one.
Knowing oneself, understanding alive is not the same as acquiring knowledge. When you acquire knowledge, then it is a thing of memory; then you begin form the point of not having knowledge and you end at a point of having acquired knowledge. But knowing oneself is not about gathering knowledge; it is a thing about observation. And life is continuously in front of to observe.
How is it possible I want to ask you that you do not know? And Please! Let this question come very closely to you. This is a thought. Right! This is a particular assumption. It is a belief that I do not know, I need external help, I need reminders and I need helping hand. From where did this thought, from where did this beliefs come to you? You are not born with this belief. From where did this belief come to you? – That you will not be able to know unless that divine authority comes and blessesyou. Who told you this?
L: The same authority.
AP: That same authority. Don’t you see the foolish conspiracy? Don’t you see that they have vrsted interest in telling you that unless you go to them, you will not be able to know? From where did the first Upanishad come? How did he know? He had no teacher. From where does the one know; who is not in contact with books or society or physical teachers.
How does the river know how to flow? How do the birds know? How do the seasons know? They all know. How do they know? How is it possible that only we do not know? Everything in the universe is at its proper place; is not suffering from a complex of not knowing. How is it possible that man is wandering around in the grief that he does not know? This is the belief that has been implanted in our minds and you must figure out: by whom and how? Because that belief has not been implanted in one go, in one instance. It is continuously being reinforced.
We are continuously being told that enlightenment is something to be attained; that it lies out there somewhere distant in the future. We are continuously being told that God is somewhere up there. And we find it easy to believe in all that stuff because that relieves us of our own responsibility to be our own master.
Slavery is very comfortable in some sense. It’s something of security, something of safety. You don’t have to live by your own awareness. You can now walk blindfold. You can allow somebody else to determine the course of your life. And you can console yourself that you must be doing the right thing, because everybody else is doing it.
The things that a scripture talks of: are those material things? Are they things of experience? The scripture says God said, “Let there be light!” and there was light. Now is this something that you have ever seen. Yet the moment you read it, it resonates. The moment you read it, you know that there is something here. How is it possible for that to resonate with you if you do not already know that it is true? Look at all the strange and weird things that an Asthavakra says, that an Upanishad says, that a Ribhu says, that a Kabir says – insane, illogical. And yet, you know what they are saying.
You smile! In fact, it’s a delight. It is a delight because your center and Kabir center is one that is why it is possible to immediately relate with Kabir. Immediately!
And you will never understand Kabir; if you do not already understand Kabir which means that if you are not already a Kabir you cannot understand a Kabir, which means that you cannot understand words of godliness if you don’t already, have godliness within you. And you understand and that is the proof of who you are.
Life accepts no deviation from its smooth flow. When you act in stupid ways, then what you get is suffering. Suffering is a reminder from life. You are asking for reminders. Any moment of suffering, anything that causes you grief is a sure short reminder. It is telling your ways are misplaced. Do you need a bigger reminder?
All the hesitation, all the ambitiousness, all the stress, all the need to achieve something – all that is reminder that there is something not quite proper about the way you are living. And if you listen to those reminders, if you don’t suppress them, if you are not insistent upon deceiving yourself, if you are not insistent that you will get the answers from some guru then immediately you will get the answers from yourself because life does not accept deviation.
You get hurt, life offers suffering. You fall down, you stumbled but we are so obstinate that we get up. We get up and we pretend that nothing is happened and we walk on. We just brush of our cloths and sure that nobody has seen us falling and keep walking as if nothing has happened. Now here was the message, here was the strong reminder.
You are present in your so-called “satsang” and you are feeling drowsy. Life is telling you something –“Do not listen so much to the person, listen to your own drowsiness. Your drowsiness is the message of life. You have become habituated to something. In moments that matter you are unable to immediately decide on your own. This confusion, this inner conflict is a message from life.
You are searching for love, life appears so dry: it is a message from life. You find that you are sacred, but are able to do nothing to break away from the enslavement: that‘s a message from life. And life takes no time to deliver the message. All the feedback from the life is real-time, instantaneous; then and there. You step wrongly you fall, the reminder has come. Now would you heed the reminder? Would you be humble enough to pay attention to what life is saying? Or would you keep saying that, “Okay! Tomorrow I’ll ask about this to the guru.”?
And the guru will then say in his great voice that, “You know yesterday you fell down because your karmic quotient has reached the saturation level. And by falling down, the snake in your backbone has been activated.”
But we love consolations. There are very few of us who would rather act courageously and confront the facts when they present themselves to us and they are presenting themselves to us at every moment all the time.
What is it that you do not know? I want to ask you. Don’t you know, what is your relationship with your wife? Don’t you know what you think about your kids? Don’t you know how you keep feeling in your guts? Don’t you know how your job makes you feel? And that is life, what else is life? Don’t you know why you want to buy new car? Don’t you know why that person puts you off?
Don’t you what you find sexy? And what is it, you really do not know? Some mumbo-jumbo, *Parmatman*!
What will you do with the “Parmatman” – Eat, bake, fry, rinse, wear, use as toilet paper? This is life and nothing else. And what is life is presenting itself without fail, without cessation and without intermission.
I am again asking you: “Please! Tell me, how are you incomplete?” Convince me that you do not know. I do not see how you are incomplete. I do not see how you are in such desperate need of guidance. That you need to identify a person wearing a certain rob and standing and showering Truth upon you.
You do not need that person; the vicious fact is that person needs you. Will you let this come to you? Will you let this statement be clear to you? You do not need that person; you do not need that Guru. That Guru needs you to showcase his followership. Don’t you see the damn trap?
And why is freedom so difficult to accept?
Yes! Isn’t it strange? That if I convince that you are small, petty and you need helping hand. You will accept it so easily. But if I convince that you are free, strong and beautiful – you resist. I have always found it more difficult to convince people of their beauty than to convince them of their ugliness. And if I run a beauty parlor, I would surely want to convince people of their ugliness. Do you get this? If I run the beauty salon then it is very important to me to convince you that there is something wrong about you, so you should come to me.
And if you have been convinced since childhood, if you have been conditioned by education, family, society, church, media, gurus then you will start taking your ugliness as a fact, your impotence as a fact. You are not impotent, you are not ugly.
You are most wonderful just as you are! The only thing ugly about you is that you do not accept your beauty; you suppress it and that is so ugly. So you are the most beautiful one and at the same time, the ugliest one as well because you do not allow this beauty to radiate. There can be no worse crime than to label your beauty as ugliness. There is no site worse than seeing man following another man.
*Man must follow only Truth, not another man.*
The head must surely go down and surrender but only in front of the Truth, not in front of some rob wielding actor. And if you are bowing down to a man then remember that you are not bowing down to God. And that is sacrilege; you will not be pardon for that.
Just look at this that is already present, happening, direct and obvious and that is all. You need no further guidance. Nothing in existence seeks guidance of any kind. How is it possible that you do? Nothing in existence insists upon wearing makeup, how is it possible that you do?
Only you have convinced that you are ugly. Only you have been convinced that you are feeble, weak. Only you have been convinced that you need to reach some heaven. Probably everything and everybody else is already in heaven. Man is the only one, who is continuously trying to move to a heaven and hence he finds himself in hell all the time.
Don’t you see that so-called professional saints have a great role in creating this hell for us? Don’t you see that?
