The problem is our tendency to turn great ideas into religion or God.
But what is God ?? Is it not the collective desires and yearnings of the people
and their environment ??
That is why in the past people used to move from one god to another. That was really
very significant, it was an evolution. The God of Moses is less sophisticated than the
God of Jesus, naturally; there are thousands of years between these two enlightened
persons. Moses was as enlightened as Jesus, but Moses had to talk the language which
could be understood by his people, and those people were very primitive. Hence Moses
spoke in the language of law, commandments: do this, don't do that.
Law was his central emphasis.
By the time Jesus arrived man had evolved. Jesus talked about love, not about law.
Love was his law. Now love is a higher value than law, certainly holier than law.
Law is mundane. The God of the Jews was a jealous god... because we make our
God in our own image. The God of the Jews was a very angry god; for small reasons
he would destroy cities. A person just commits a sin -- and what is sin in the ancient
concept? He just disobeys a certain commandment -- and God can destroy the
whole town! It was a very angry, violent god.
It was not really the god that was violent and angry, it was the people. Their eyes were
full of violence and anger, they could not see the real God.
Remember this: God is always the same. It was exactly the same when Moses was alive,
it was exactly the same when Jesus was alive, it is exactly the same when we are alive;
it will remain the same. God is always the same, but our eyes change.
Jesus could see God as love, as compassion. God was growing because man was growing.
And man was changing one god for another, for a higher conception of god. Man has always
been changing gods, and that's perfectly right. When we change, how can our rudimentary
ideas of God remain the same? When our eyes change everything changes.
That's how it has been. When Moses talked about God, he talked about the God which the
Jews of his time could have understood. When Jesus talked about God, of course, three
thousand years had passed, man had grown, had come of age; it was possible to talk
about love. At least a few people could understand him -- not many, but a few. Hence
he was crucified; because the many could not understand yet.
In the past people have been changing their god.
One of the Indian incarnations of god is Parashuram. He killed millions of people, his whole
life was that of a killer. Another incarnation of god is Buddha. He was absolutely non-violent;
he would not kill even an ant. Between the time of Parashuram and Buddha much water had
flowed down the Ganges. Buddha brings a new concept of God, a new vision. It is the same
god, but he gives you new eyes.
In the past people had been changing gods: "Men have left God not for other gods..."
But in the present day something else has happened: Man has not left God for other gods
-- that would have been okay -- "they say, but for no God." Man has dropped the whole idea
of God, the whole idea of a divine presence in existence, the whole idea of any meaning,
the whole idea that existence is alive, conscious: And now we are standing empty
and we are feeling empty.
BUT MAN CANNOT remain empty; it is difficult to remain empty. Just as nature abhors a vacuum,
so is it the case with the inner nature too. So a new phenomenon is happening: "Men both deny
gods and worship gods." They have created their own gods. They don't worship God the Father
and the Holy Ghost and Jesus Christ any more; they have changed that old trinity. They worship
Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, V.I. Lenin -- a new trinity. Now this is very ordinary; to worship
Karl Marx or Engels or Lenin is to worship something very ordinary. And remember, whatsoever
you worship you will become, because your worship is your longing deep down.
"Professing first Reason..." -- and because man cannot remain empty for long, he replaced it
first with reason; reason became god, the head became god. Anything that is proved by reason
is truth, anything that is not proved by reason is untruth. Now this is nonsense! Reason is limited,
it cannot prove many things.
For example, it cannot prove the beauty of a rose, but the beauty exists; reason is impotent
to prove it. Reason cannot prove the existence of love, but love exists; reason is inadequate
to prove it. If you ask reason about music it will say it is only noise. It may be arranged in such
a way that it gives you an illusion of melody, but there is no melody, only noise; it cannot see
the melody. Reason is blind. Yes, it has certain qualities, but only certain qualities. The whole
of existence is not available to it.
And then money became god; millions of people worship money as god. And you will be surprised
to know that this country, India, which goes on bragging about its spirituality, which goes on
bragging that it is destined to lead the whole of humanity towards spirituality, worships money
more than any other country. It actually worships! There is a festival, the Festival of Lights,
Diwali, when people worship money-notes, coins; they actually worship! -- money is god.
In other countries they may not actually be worshipping, but the worship there is unconsciously.
And power has become a god. The politician has become the most important person in the world.
The dirtiest politician is thought to be something superhuman. And so it is with religious institutions
like the SGPC. We have denied God, but how can we deny our emptiness? We have rejected God,
and we had to stuff something in the empty space, so we stuff it with political power, with money,
with reason, with race, with dialectics -- if you cannot find anything else, then dialectical
materialism, the philosophy of communism, fascism, nazism.
Man cannot live without religion. Man cannot live without God. If the true God is not available
man is bound to create home-made gods.
"The Church disowned, the tower overthrown, the bells upturned, and what have we
to do but stand with empty hands and palms turned upwards in an age which
advances progressively backwards?"
Yes, T.S. Eliot is right.
Thanks.
