| |
or making lines on your palms. Even an omnipotent God must be tired by now, doing this stupid thing of making lines on people's hands. And so many people are coming... writing in everybody's head what he is going to be, where he is going to be born, when he is going to die, what disease, what doctor is going to kill him. All these details!
Either God must have gone mad doing all this work -- just think of yourself, if you have to do this kind of work, and for no reason -- or he must have committed suicide. Even if he were mad he would have to do his work; so for a few days he may have been mad, while he made this humanity, and then he committed suicide -- because he does not want to see the world evaporate because of nuclear weapons. But he has written those nuclear weapons in your heads; he is responsible.
Nobody is responsible, and there is no God.
These are our strategies to throw responsibility into others' hands.
You are free, but each act of freedom brings a responsibility -- and that is your bondage. Either call it `bondage', which is not a beautiful word, or call it `responsibility'. That is what I call it.
You choose a certain act -- that is your freedom -- but then the consequences will be your responsibility.
I am against Krishna's idea; he says to Arjuna in GITA, that "Only the action is in your hands; the result is in God's hands." That kind of split is absolutely illogical, absurd. Action is in your hands and the result will be in God's hands: this is very tricky. This is the strategy of the priesthood.
Otherwise, the simple fact is that the act is yours and the responsibility is yours. Action and its effect, cause and effect, are connected together; you cannot divide them.
But why was Krishna dividing it? -- he was just representing the priesthood. For thousands of years the priesthood has been confronting a simple problem which they cannot solve. They see criminals, sinners becoming successful, rich. They see simple people, innocent people being crushed, exploited, oppressed, and still religion goes on saying, "Be simple, be innocent." Then the question arises: if innocence and simplicity are
|
|
|