Science of the Rishis: A Daily Rhythm

Part IV: Belief vs. Direct Knowledge: The Real Source of Truth

I WAS BROUGHT UP AS A QUAKER, AND WE WERE TOLD NEVER TO SWEAR ON A BIBLE IN COURT, BECAUSE AS QUAKERS WE COULD ONLY SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND THAT THE SOURCE OF OUR TRUTH WAS SILENCE. THIS IS SO CLOSE TO WHAT YOU SAY, I AM SURPRISED WHEN YOU SAY YOU DON’T AGREE WITH THE THEOLOGY OF QUAKERISM.

I am also surprised. The first thing: Quakerism is part of Christian theology. I have never said anything against Quakerism, but you are forcing me to now.

It is a by-product of Christian theology, and I am against all theologies. Quakerism is not an independent religion, but just a sect of Christianity. It accepts all kinds of stupidities that are propounded by Jesus and his theologians. It is not against THE BIBLE — and THE BIBLE is so full of rubbish, lies.

The basic lie is God, the holy ghost, Jesus the only begotten son of God. Lies upon lies — a virgin birth, resurrection after being crucified. Quakerism does not deny all these things, it accepts them.

Secondly, you are saying you have been told not to take oath upon the BIBLE in the court. I have also said that the oath is absolutely unnecessary. A man who is capable of lying — no oath can prevent him. And to take an oath placing your hand on THE BIBLE is hilarious. THE BIBLE is so full of lies, and you are taking an oath for truth — that you will not speak anything but truth!

My reason not to take an oath on any religious scripture is totally different from that of the Quakers. The Quakers believe — remember, they believe: I know. You have been told: I have seen.

And the difference is infinite between being told and experiencing it on your own.

Just by being told that because you are a Quaker whatsoever you speak will be truth…. This is strange. It is a belief, borrowed knowledge, conditioning. Just by your being a Quaker, it is not a certainty that whatsoever you speak will be the truth.

Yes, if you have experienced total silence, then nothing can come out of you which is not true.

But I know many Quakers. They sit in silence also in their congregations. I have been to their congregations, and I have asked them, “If you are really truthful, tell me: What were you doing in your silence?” And they have always said, “We were thinking — thinking of silence, trying to be silent, making efforts to be silent.” Yes, it is true they are not speaking. If you mean just by not speaking you are silent, then you are just a fool.

Silence is such a deep experience, where thoughts, emotions, everything disappears. If you have attained to that silence you will not even call yourself a Quaker. You will not subscribe to any theology. You don’t need one; you have found the very source of truth within yourself.

The Quakers have been defying the court; they will not take the oath. They have been punished for it, because it is an insult to the court, it is contempt of the court: they have been imprisoned, tortured. But the Quaker and my sannyasin are totally different.

I say the oath is useless. But I teach my sannyasins to be nonserious. To the Quakers it has become something of a dogmatic idea, a fanatic standpoint: they will not take the oath. I tell my sannyasins, “You live in a society, you have to follow their rules — remembering that they are all man-made.”

For example, in some countries you have to drive on the right side of the road, in some countries on the left side of the road. What is wrong with the right side? You can say that it makes no difference whether you drive on the right side or left side, it is simply a rule. Don’t Quakers follow this simple rule? You don’t take it seriously, there is no problem in it; it is simply a question of managing the traffic. It can be done in both ways, so there is nothing serious about it. It is not something like an ultimate law of existence, that if you drive on the right side you will go to hell.

Quakers have been going to jail. I will not tell my sannyasins to do that. It is not worth it. Take the oath, and say whatsoever you want to say. Oath or no oath, it makes no difference to your statements. Why unnecessarily enrage those poor judges and juries? Let them be satisfied. If they are feeling happy just by your taking an oath, and feeling that now whatever you say will be the truth, let them befool themselves. You have to say what you want to say. The oath is irrelevant to you, but why make so much fuss about it that you have to go for two years behind bars?

Theory: Playing by the Rules Without Taking the Game Seriously

Mindful Workplace (Sattva): Cultivate Anubhava (Data & First-Hand Insight Over Dogma)

• Workplace Practice: Make decisions based on direct observation and empirical evidence rather than rigid legacy processes (the way we’ve always done it). Before accepting a policy or strategy as absolute truth, test it through direct experience and real-time feedback.