”Just look at the fact: I was simply quoting him. It was the court’s duty to ask the man whether I am
quoting him rightly or wrongly. You should have called him here; we could have argued in front of you
and made it clear to Vinoba that he is sexually obsessed and he is projecting his sexual obsession
on poor Lakshmana.
”I was protecting Lakshmana. Vinoba should put a case against me. And this man is simply an idiot:
he does not understand even what I was saying. He does not know what it means. But Vinoba is
not called. And,” I said, ”I will not appear again in the court unless Vinoba is called.”
The judge had no guts – because the prime minister goes to Vinoba, the cabinet ministers go to
Vinoba, the president goes to Vinoba. To call Vinoba to the court would incur anger from all sides.
The judge dismissed the case. He could not do anything else – he simply dismissed the case.
Politics has power. Vinoba was a religious leader, but through the politicians he has power. Although
that power is not very substantial, still the power is there.
The religious leader or the political leader – both are in the same boat, helping each other. The
politician protects the religious leader, the religious leader protects the politician. He protects him
through people’s religious feelings, and the politician protects the religious leader by his power. It is
a mutual understanding. Hence I don’t make any difference between the two. To me, the political
leader is more criminal-minded; hence is ready to take the risk.
The religious leader is a coward, but cunning; through cunningness he manages to rise even higher
than the political leader; at least in the abstract sense he is higher than the political leader.
But the desire of both is the same: to rule, to have control over millions of people.
To me, a man who does not suffer from an inferiority complex has no need even to lead a single
man, to be powerful over even a single man. Such a man, if he is a husband, will not have any
power over his wife. He will be just a friend, not a husband.
The word husband is ugly. It comes from husbandry: just as the farmer sows seeds in the ground,
the husband does husbandry with the wife, he sows seeds. The woman is just like the earth and the
husband is the possessor of the earth, the owner. The word husband is ugly, it should be changed.
The whole idea is very primitive, crude.
The wife is not taken as a human being but as earth which you can sell. And it has been the case in
the past: in many cultures wives were sold, purchased. In China you could have killed your wife – it
was not a crime because she was your possession. If you destroy your chair it is nobody’s business;
the chair was your possession – so was your wife.
Just because I mentioned Vinoba Bhave I remember ... I had met him many times. One time he was
giving his daily discourse in his ashram – and what ashrams these people had! Twelve widows, that
was his ashram. And those widows were listening to his great discourse.
I just happened to pass from Wardha to Nagpur and his ashram was just outside the Wardha city, by
the side of a river, Pavanar; hence the name of his ashram, Paramdham Pavanar. The friend who
was driving me said, ”This is the time Vinoba’s discourse starts. Would you like ...?”
I said, ”There is no harm,” so we went and sat. He had already started and he was telling an
upanishadic story. The story was about a very famous upanishadic seer. His name was Raikva,
Maharishi Raikva, but he was better known as Gadivan Raikva because he always traveled in a
bullock cart. Gadivan means one who drives the bullock cart.
But in those days to have a beautiful bullock cart was something very special, it was not ordinary.
Even today in Indian villages to have a beautiful bullock cart is to have a great possession. Gadivan
Raikva went to a market where girls were being sold. It was a market to purchase slaves – men,
women.
Now, in the first place what is a maharishi doing in a market where slaves are being sold? Vinoba
did not bother about that. There was one very beautiful girl, and when the auction began on the girl,
Maharishi Raikva started raising the price. But it was difficult because the king of the country was
also present and he was also interested in the girl, and he was doubling the price. Now, Gadivan
Raikva was a rich maharishi, but not to be compared with the king. Finally the king purchased the
girl at a very high price. Raikva was very angry.
After ten years .... this is the whole story that I am telling. Vinoba did not tell this part of the story,
of the slave market, Raikva’s competition with the king, his defeat, the girl being purchased by the
king. All this part was left out.
Vinoba began praising Raikva, his wisdom, and started the story ten years after this incident: The
king was becoming old and wanted somebody to guide him in the spiritual life, so he went to Gadivan
Raikva with many chariots full of gold, money, valuable clothes. He offered everything to Raikva,
touched his feet, and Raikva said – he used the word ”sudra” for him.
”Sudra” is the worst you can say to a man. It is difficult to translate in English, so I will say, ”You
son-of-a-bitch! You think that by all this money you can purchase spiritual guidance? I spit on all
your money – take it back!”
This was the main emphasis in Vinoba’s story, and he said, ”These were the people who could throw
all those valuable presents and say directly – even to the king – ‘You are a sudra, the worst kind of
human being: untouchable. The very idea in your mind, that by money you can purchase spiritual
guidance, makes you untouchable. Just take all this rubbish from here and don’t come back to me.’”
So Vinoba talked much about it, that this was the courage of the seers of India, that they could even
insult a great king without being afraid. I was very puzzled, because those twelve widows were
listening in great silence as if some great thing was being said.
I said, ”Vinoba, you have not told the whole story. You have left out two portions, first in the middle
of the story – which is very important in order to understand in what context this man Raikva was
speaking – and you have left out the end part also .... Because the king went home and he asked
his prime minister what to do: Raikva has refused, and he was very angry.
The prime minister said, ”I knew it was going to happen. You must have forgotten: ten years before
you had, in an auction, defeated Raikva; now if you want him to guide you, you take that woman
rather than money. Offer the woman to the man. Touch his feet, ask his forgiveness, and he will
guide you ....”
He took the woman, and Raikva received him with great joy, accepted him as a disciple and guided
him into spirituality.
I said, ”These two parts you have dropped from the story. You are cheating these twelve widows.
Now, what authority have you got to change the story? Who are you? On what grounds did you drop
those two parts? – because without those two parts the story takes a totally different color. It seems
as if Raikva is so high that money does not matter to him, but the reality is that it is not a question of
money. The woman that was taken from his hands matters too much to him.
”And this man who carries for ten years a revengeful attitude, and for ten years is still lusting for the
woman – what spiritual guidance can he give?” I asked him, ”You tell me what spiritual guidance this
man can give – and why you dropped these two parts from the story.”
And since that time Vinoba remained angry with me. He said, ”The time is over, so if you want to
discuss you will have to come to my ...”
I said, ”I don’t want to discuss, because there is nothing to discuss; I simply wanted to make the story
complete – and I have made it complete and all the widows have understood. You have understood.
What argument? I have nothing to do with all these kinds of rogues, this Gadivan Raikva. What
do I have to do with this man? I wanted simply to make the story complete, just out of a sense of
appropriateness; otherwise I am not interested.”
But this kind of thing is not expected of a man of integrity. This is simply cheating.
These are ”religious” people. Indira used to go for spiritual guidance to Vinoba Bhave. I told Indira
Gandhi – I had told her this story – ”This is spiritual guidance? You are also a widow; when you are
no longer a prime minister go into his ashram.”
But Vinoba died before Indira, and then she died, so the chance never came; otherwise she would
have ended up in Vinoba Bhave’s ashram of widows.
And I asked her: ”What do you say? Is this a man who has some sense of being truthful? And
if Raikva could not give guidance, I say to you this Vinoba also cannot give you any guidance.”
Misguidance perhaps ....
We have never heard what happened to the king, what spiritual growth he obtained; the Indian
spiritual history remembers nothing of the king. But it is natural, because whatever advice this idiot
must have given could not be called spiritual – this man was not spiritual.
But this is how religious leaders and political leaders .... They are all made of the same stuff, the
same holy cow-dung. I don’t see any difference, except superficial differences about which there is
no need to talk.
