Science of the Rishis: A Daily Rhythm

Part V: The Nonserious Man: Why Life Is Just a Game of Cards

I am a nonserious man. Quakers are very serious about it. They will risk their life, but they will not take the oath. The oath has become more important than life itself.

It is just a game. You play cards: there is a king and there is a queen and there is a joker, and all sorts of people are there. You know that this is just a playing card, and this queen is just like the queen of England — absolutely meaningless, powerless. But while playing the game you have to accept that this is the queen, this is the king, this is the joker, and so on, so forth. You don’t start going to jail because “I will not accept this card as the king!” It is up to you — don’t play the game.

These are all games. That is the difference. You are asking me what the difference is, why I criticize Quaker theology. In fact, I have never done it before, but from now onwards I am going to do it unless you start quaking! To take games of life seriously shows only your stupidity, not your silence.

I have been in the courts. I have taken an oath, but before I take the oath I certainly make a statement telling the judge, “I will follow the rule, I will take the oath, but the oath cannot make any difference to me. I will speak only that which I want to speak.

“And your oath, in fact, frees me from telling the truth and only the truth, because the oath I am taking on THE BIBLE, on the GITA, on the KORAN — which are full of lies… naturally by taking the oath on THE BIBLE I am completely freed. Now I can lie without any trouble. Without an oath I will only speak the truth; with an oath, there is no need because I have already lied by putting my hand on THE BIBLE.”

Quakers are not against THE BIBLE — I am. In one court I refused to put my hand on THE BIBLE. I said, “I will keep a little distance.” The judge asked, “Why?”

I said, “Because it is such garbage I don’t want to touch it. It is your rule, so I will put my hand on top of it, but I will keep a little distance. I am very allergic.” There is an immense difference between my criticism of this system of oath taking and the Quakers’ criticism.

I am not saying that just because you are a sannyasin that’s enough to guarantee that you will speak only the truth, no. Just being sannyasins does not mean that you will only speak the truth. And it is not so easy to decide what the truth is.

It happened that one of the great historians was writing the history of the whole world. It was an immense job to write the whole history of the whole world, of all the nations. He devoted almost fifty years, working almost twelve, fourteen hours a day. And the day he was coming to his last page, something happened and he burned his whole life’s effort.

Somebody was murdered just in the neighborhood. Of course, so many people gathered there: the police were there, the journalists were there. The historian also went there. He asked one person who was an eyewitness, he asked another person who was an eyewitness — and he was amazed. The stories of all the eyewitnesses were different. And there was no reason for them to lie, they were not involved in it.

One eyewitness said he was killed inside the house. Another eyewitness said he was killed under the sky, the open sky. The truth was that he was killed in a house which was just being built, and the roof was not yet there. He was killed under the open sky — without the roof you can’t call it a house. But it was a house in the process of being built. The roof is only a part of the house, so the other was not lying either, saying that he was killed inside the house.

Listening to other eyewitnesses, he became suddenly aware of one thing: “A murder happens in my neighborhood; within two minutes’ time I am there, eyewitnesses are available — and it cannot be decided what actually happened. I have been wasting my whole life writing about Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, Nadir Shah — so much time has passed. Can I say truthfully that what I have written is factual? Perhaps many of these people never existed!”

George Gurdjieff had a theory about Jesus Christ: that he never existed, that it is only an ancient drama which was played amongst the Jews, there has never been a historical man Jesus. And he supported his idea that it is only a drama, just like the dramas of Shakespeare and Bernard Shaw. His first piece of evidence was that Jesus is not mentioned in any Jewish book.

Such a man, who could walk on water, do you think he would not create news? Would he not be mentioned somewhere in the contemporary literature? A man who can raise the dead back to life — if he is not mentioned, then who else will be mentioned? This man was doing all kinds of miracles: turning stones into bread, turning water into wine…. And the resurrection — he was crucified but God would not allow his only begotten Son to be dead, so he came back again.

Theory: The Serious Man vs. The Nonserious Player: Rethinking Morality

Mindful Workplace (Sattva): Maya-Drishti: Unveiling Corporate Governance Insights – Recognise that constructed systems, titles, and hierarchies are contextual constructs (*Maya*). 

• Workplace Practice: Treat corporate hierarchies, titles, and bureaucratic protocols as rules of a game you choose to play. Follow necessary compliance standards cleanly and without friction, while maintaining the internal clarity that these labels hold no ultimate authority over your essence.