Question: Why does society hate lovers but like husbands and wives?
Speaker: The society is not based on love. Society is a certain external order and love is an intrinsic order, an internal order. So love and society are different, are opposites. It is simple.
Society means man relating to another man on the basis of preset, well laid out rules. It’s an external order. So you have to walk on a particular side of a road, I too have to walk on a particular side of the road. Right? And we have to stand in a queue. So, a man relating to another man on the basis of a pre-established order. That is society.
And what is love? Man relating to another man on the basis of an innate order. So the society cannot like love. The external order is dead. The internal order is dynamic, alive, kicking. The internal order is very-very rebellious. It doesn’t like any external orders. The force of love doesn’t tolerate any external rules, traditions, impositions. It doesn’t like them. So, always there is a clash, a dissonance between the society and the lovers.
Society wants an external discipline; love moves on its own inner discipline. This inner discipline is very beautiful but it does not conform to the external patterns. So the society is unable to recognize it, or trust it. It is very difficult for the society to trust love. In fact the society cannot trust anything. Society is founded on mistrust. Where there is trust, there is a very little space for rules. And the society is all rules, and rules. Society cannot even trust, and love has faith. Such is the distance between two. How can the two go together?
Society says, “Whenever you give something, take a receipt.” Love says, “Keep on giving and giving without even knowing to whom it is going.” How can these two go together? So society feels afraid of the force of love. The more there is innate order, the less there is the need of external order.Fso
A healthy society is one in which there would be a live force that would realize the power of love, and not impose any rules on it.
But to do that you require a very sensitive eye. See, obviously there are a large number of people in society who are absolutely loveless, for various reasons, conditioning, this and that. For them you need to have rules, otherwise they will just run amok. Any possibility of liberation for them, itself depends on whether they follow the rules. So it’s very much appropriate that they are kept under rules. A student must come to the classroom first, only then there is some possibility for him to learn anything. So rules are needed. For a loveless mind, rules are very much needed. But if the same rules are applied at the loving mind, then there is a disaster.
So you need to have an eye to distinguish between these two and not impose the loveless norms upon the loving. But that eye then need to be actually an authority, not accountable to anybody. Because these things cannot be explained. How will you explain that why a certain provision, a certain rule was relaxed on a particular person? And it is impossible to demonstrate that this mind is loving and that mind is loveless. So authority then cannot be accountable to anybody.
If you start asking, “Why did you relax this provision for that man? Why are you relaxing some provisions for the Buddha?” It is impossible to show why. It is impossible to show why a king climbs down from his throne and bows down in front of the Buddha. He doesn’t do the same to other people. Now, had it been the age of modern, liberal values, an impeachment motion would have been brought against the king, that you know he is distinguishing. That some kind of linguistic discrimination or rational discrimination, or some other kind of discrimination is going on.
The king does not bow down to so many people but this king bows down to this man. Now how can the king explain that here he sees intelligence, that here he sees something sacred that he does not see in others? “I have to bow down. And I have to relax the usual terms of protocol, in case of this person. He is different and deserves a different treatment.” And this cannot be proven. There is no way of proving this that this man is different. You only need to have that eye to see. It cannot be proven to somebody who doesn’t have that eye.
How can you show colours to the bind? Even to the blind, somehow it can be managed. But how can you show colours to someone who is forcibly closing his eyes? So this cannot be proved. But one thing is certain, the dead structure of society strangulates love. And that’s a tragedy. That is such a tragedy.
So we have a society in which there is an external order and things are externally well in place. You have the traffic moving nicely in one direction, you have government officers, you have railway services, you have the entire democratic set up. And it appears that the things are going alright. You have hospitals, you have schools and colleges, you have various institutions. You have economics, you have politics, and you have the judiciary. You have the police and rest of the executives. So it appears that everything is orderly. But it’s a dead and imposed order. It is not rising from your heart.
In fact, whatever arises from your heart is crushed down under the weight of this order, because what arises from the heart is very rebellious. It is not prepared to remain subjugated. It will clash. And the external order is strong and powerful. It has means, methods and resources. It will subjugate and kill the internal order. The internal one will rise again, that’s another matter, may be in some other form. One man can be killed but love cannot be killed. So you can kill a couple of lovers. Love will arise again in the shape of some other body, ultimately the love will triumph. But yes, persons will suffer. Persons can be killed and they are killed.
The inability to recognize consciousness is worst failure of any kind of social, written order. No order has any provision for recognizing consciousness. It just treats all bodies as the same. So if there are hundred drunkards and a Buddha and they go to a polling booth, the votes of each of them will carry the same weight-age because the rules are same for everybody. And we pride ourselves for this- same rules for everybody. We don’t see what a blunder it is, and that exactly is the situation of the world. If there are hundred people, ninety-nine are drunkards. So what kind of governments you will get? A drunken government.
Had it been a conscious society, then the Buddha’s vote would have a million times more weight-age than the vote of your so-called ordinary man. And Buddha’s are always in the minority. So their votes never count. Never count. Whose vote count? The votes of the drunken masses. That is the inability of any kind of social order. It is made for masses, it does not recognize any Buddha-hood. In no social order is there any provision, any scope, any relaxation or any respect for consciousness. Are you getting it?
So an order will be issued that nobody must walk the street after midnight, because it is assumed that whosoever walks after midnight is a thief or a scoundrel. They will not realize that somebody might like to go on a night walk at midnight. Whosoever goes would have to meet the weight of the social order. And they are right because ninety-nine out of hundred people who are roaming around three in the night are thieves and drunkards. That is the shortcoming of the social order. It has no eye for love, it has no eye for understanding. It has no eye for consciousness.
Listener 1: Sir, yesterday you taught me the weighted average mean. So society is like that it takes a normal average. It doesn’t even know about this weighted average.
Speaker: No, the problem is it does not know the weight. To take a weighted average of three numbers you must first know their weight. Right? To give the vote of the Buddha a special weight-age, you must first give special weight-age to the Buddha. How can you give a special weight-age to the vote of Buddha if you do not give the special weight-age to the Buddha? It’s a very Buddha-less society that we have. If I do not respect the Buddha himself, why will I respect the value of his vote?
Listener 2: In today’s social structure if a Buddha arises, then he just can’t go and meet the president, whereas in the older times, there used to be such good possibilities. There have been several examples and stories based on such incidents. Is it that with the growth in educational system or because of industrialization the reach of the Buddha has decreased? Or is it that the world has become more faithless.
Speaker: No. Not only does the society change, the expression of the Buddha also changes with time. The Buddha is not a static unit. His expression, his demeanor too changes with time. When I say Buddha, do not think of Siddhartha Gautama. That’s not what I am referring to. I am referring to the Buddhahood – Buddhatv. I am referring to ‘That’ within the Buddha which is his essence. That knows how to operate in a given situation in a given time.
Listener 3: Sir, is there any example, real life example of love without relationship?
Speaker: See, three things are there. If I mention the names of two persons as an example, how does it help you? And what kind of order is that? Is that an external order or an internal order?
Listener 3: Sir, I think it is an external order.
Speaker: So, using the external order of examples, you want to understand the internal orders. Examples are given so that you can be subjugated under the weight of examples.
Why does the mind need examples? And what will it do with the examples? Even if you know the names, all that you get is some information, some knowledge. Will you ever be able to taste the relationship between them? It is between these two, what will you do with it? Even if I tell you that those two are lovers there, does that make you taste some of the love between them? What you will do with examples in such a case.
And how will you verify? You will verify using your own standards. Had your own standards been appropriate and sufficient, you would already have known love. Why would you need examples? Would you love by examples? When you taste love, would you taste love according to examples? “My neighbor is setting up such a brilliant example of loving a girl who is three inches taller than himself. So I follow his footsteps.” Is love something that follows examples? Does it follow examples? Do examples and role models have any place in love? “My grandmother was seen by my grandfather eight years after the marriage,” will you follow the example?
Love does not proceed by any convention, by anything that is established, by any tradition of the past. It does not seek to violate them either. It has nothing to do with them. Neither does it go by them, nor does it seek to violate them. It is simply indifferent to them. There is no question of examples, or role models, or traditions, or convention in love. Or when you start feeling love, you go and search, “Can I find a suitable example? Only then I will tell him or her.”
(Sarcastically) So you see a turtle, and you search on internet, “Is it alright to love a turtle?” and if you don’t get the example then you drop the turtle. You might be the first man on this planet who has fallen in love with the turtle. So what? So what? Don’t you have the guts? Don’t you have love? Turtles don’t think this way (everyone laughs). They do not want internet. Why do you want internet?
If you are loving towards a turtle, see how it responds? Turtle never asks, “Mummy is it alright to be nice to this one?” And mummy says, “Wait. Let me first ask the elders.”
Love doesn’t happen this way. It is spontaneous.
– Excerpts from a Clarity Session held at Advait Sthal. Edited for clarity.
Watch the session at: The external social order neither tolerates nor matches the innate order of Love
Read more articles on this topic:
Article 1: Conditioned behaviour is not love
Article 2: Desireless action is love
Article 3: Love scares the ego