Osho – J. Krishnamurti, a man who struggled for ninety years – his last words have some great meaning. One of my friends was present there. Krishnamurti lamented, he lamented his whole life. He lamented that ”people have taken me as an entertainment. They come to listen to me….” There are people who have listened to him for fifty years continually, and still they are the same people as had come for the first time to listen to him.

Naturally it is annoying and irritating that the same people… Most of them I know, because J.
Krishnamurti used to come only once a year for two or three weeks to Bombay, and slowly, slowly all his followers in Bombay became acquainted with me. They all were sad about this point: What should be done? How can we make Krishnamurti happy?

The reason was that Krishnamurti only talked, but never gave any devices in which whatever he was talking about became an experience. It was totally his fault. Whatever he was saying was absolutely right, but he was not creating the right climate, the right milieu in which it could become a seed. Of course he was very much disappointed with humanity, and that there was not a single person who had become enlightened through his teachings. His teachings have all the seeds, but he never prepared the ground.

Osho – Deva means divine and punyatam means holy, pure, simple. You have to forget the old name and remember the new. And remember the idea behind it of purity, simplicity. A person can be pure and not simple; then purity is not worth anything. You can force purity on yourself but because you force it, it will not be simple. It will be very complex. It will always carry the repressed as an undercurrent and you will be sitting on a volcano.

So when I say pure and simple, I mean it. Purity is only when it is simple, when it comes spontaneously, when it is not enforced, when you don’t practise it but just allow it to flower. It is
like a child. He is pure, simple, but his simplicity is not that of discipline. Once you try to discipline something, your head becomes powerful, and simplicity is of the heart. The head cannot give you simplicity.

I was just reading this evening about Pope John. He was a simple man, very simple – so simple that many of his colleagues used to think that he was not holy. Because he was so simple they thought he was not great… not a saint at all. Before he became pope, he was a nuncio in Paris. His colleagues were very worried about him because he would mix with ordinary people and would be found in places where he should not be. He would not follow any rules and regulations of his office.

They thought him a little of a nuisance in the high circles… snobs. They used to think that he was a nuisance and not worthy of the post he was holding. He loved gossiping and telling anecdotes and stories – and sometimes rough ones too. In the diplomatic circles he would start saying something and ladies would feel embarrassed. But he was a very simple man, just like a peasant.

Then he became pope. Everybody all over the world was very surprised at how this man could have been elected. They tried to condition him. They taught him how to behave, how to talk, saying, ’You are pope, one of the most important persons in the world, and whatsoever you say means much.’ They taught him the etiquette and formalities. But he would always forget.

The first important person to come to him was Jacqueline Kennedy. They were very worried because Kennedy was the first catholic president of America and America was one of the greatest and most powerful nations, so Pope John had to talk and behave rightly. For seven days they conditioned him, and he would repeat whatsoever they were saying. Then the master of ceremonies was very happy and everything was settled.

Then when Jacqueline Kennedy came, Pope John forgot everything. He opened his arms wide and cried, ’Welcome, Jacky !’ !

This is something very simple, peasant-like, child-like. You cannot manage it. Once you manage it, you destroy it. So what I meant by punyatam is that from this very moment, start thinking in terms of being a child – as if you don’t know the world and don’t know the ways of the world, as if you have no experience… as if you are just a clean slate with nothing written on it. And whatsoever gets written on it, wash it, clean it every day so it remains pure, clean. Remain clean of the past.

Prem means love and dhanya means blessed – blessed by love. Love is the only blessing there is, and those who love are the only ones who are blessed. All others simply live a life of curse. Nobody is cursing them; they themselves are responsible. If one wants to live a life of tremendous bliss and blessing, one should be more loving – not loving to a particular person, just loving.

Source: from Osho Book “A Rose is a Rose is a Rose”

[Osho asks a sannyasin who is a well-known film star in India, how he is. He replies: I don’t know!]

Osho – That’s good! I know: things are going well. Things really always go well, nothing ever goes wrong. It is only a question of understanding. If one understands, everything always goes right. Nothing has ever gone wrong and it can never go wrong, so whatsoever happens is how it should happen. To accept this brings great relaxation.

The very idea that something can go wrong and we have to put it right, creates anxiety. It is impossible to change anything in existence. Everything is as perfect as it can be; no change is
needed. To relax in this and to relax utterly into it, is real meditation. Meditation is not something to do, but the attitude that whatsoever is, is good and all is blessed. That attitude is meditation. It is coming slowly slowly. The hankering to change, the hankering to be this and that, is dropping.

That moment when there is no desire to be anything other than what one is, is a moment of great benediction. Then one comes to know that from the very beginning, nothing is missing. We were unnecessarily worried, unnecessarily puzzled, unnecessarily trying to find keys and clues.

And the door has always remained open – it was not closed at all. I am happy with you. Things are going very well.

[Osho then refers to the sannyasin’s colleague, a movie director.]
Just tell one thing to him: that if he has not been courageous enough to keep to the commitment of sannyas, he should be at least courteous enough to return it. And I knew that this was going to happen. I knew, because there were only two alternatives: either his girlfriend was going to become a sannyasin or he was going to become a non-sannyasin… and he was defeated by her. He will repent one day.

He will feel and he will come… but he betrayed. He has broken something very sacred. And one day when he realises the whole phenomenon he will be surprised. It is one of the basic tragedies of all love affairs: a woman becomes interested in any man who has some kind of illusive power; and that power was arising in him. It was not there before, it was arising.

The more meditative he was becoming, the more energy was arising in him. Something beautiful was on the way and I was really working hard on him – more than he ever deserved. Things were coming to a point, it was building up. In fact that energy became the attraction for her.

She is a beautiful woman – perceptive, courageous, adventurous, daring; not an ordinary indian
woman – very modern, in search of some great thrill. She became interested in him not because of him – one day he will understand it – but because he was a sannyasin and something of meditation was arising in him. Even she may not be knowingly aware of it, because people are not knowingly aware of what is happening.

Sannyasins have always been attractive to beautiful women, because a sannyasin becomes a
challenge. He is like an Everest which has to be conquered, has to be defeated, and she is an
adventurous woman. She was not interested in him – she was interested in sannyas; whether
knowingly, unknowingly, that is not the point. She was interested in a very feminine intuitive way in the energy that was arising in Mahesh and which was coming to a build-up and which was going to explode in a great flowering.

And once she became interested, the next step… that is the tragedy of all love. First, a woman is never interested in an ordinary man – no woman worth anything is ever interested in an ordinary man. A woman is always interested in something extraordinary, something majestic, something beyond the grasp. And that was there – something beyond the grasp. But once a woman catches hold of the man she was interested in, she starts destroying that very power, because then she becomes afraid: he will dominate, and nobody wants to be dominated.

Before he starts dominating, she has to destroy that very power. And I call it a tragedy, because once that power is destroyed she will no more be interested in the man. This is the dilemma: she is interested in power, then the power feels frightening. If the man remains so powerful then she will remain dependent; she will never be the whole – and soon she starts playing feminine tricks. And because he loves her, the man goes on yielding.

Once he starts yielding, the lion disappears and the mouse is born, and no woman is interested in a mouse, no woman at all. Once she has reduced the man to a mouse, she is finished, and as I can see, that is what has happened.

I was watching the whole phenomenon and that’s why I was again and again telling him ’Let her
become a sannyasin. If she does not become a sannyasin, then the next challenge is to destroy
your sannyas.’ I had not said so, but it was there. She had to destroy the relationship between me and him. She was jealous of it – there was something more powerful than her love affair.

And no woman wants anything more powerful than her love affair; that should be the suprememost. And soon, in fact already, her interest in him is flopping; she has started looking at other men. And she is not the kind of woman who can stick to one person. She could have remained with him if he had remained unyielding, if he had remained a real man. If he had remained an unconquered peak she would have remained interested, but now she will search for other peaks, somebody else. He is already a spare part, an extra.

So tell him: if he is not courageous enough to keep the commitment, he should be courteous enough to return it. And once his mala is back, I am going to burn it and destroy the whole work on him. Only that will bring him to his senses. So just tell this much to him.

Source: from Osho Book “The 99 Names of Nothingness”

Osho – RUDOLPH STEINER WAS A GREAT MIND, but mind you, I say ’a great mind’, and mind as such has nothing to do with religion. He was tremendously talented. In fact, it is very rare to find another mind to compare with Rudolph Steiner. He was so talented in so many directions and dimensions; it looks almost super-human: a great logical thinker, a great philosopher, a great architect, a great educator, and so on and so forth.

And whatsoever he touched, he brought very novel ideas to that subject. Wherever he moved his eyes, he created new patterns of thought. He was a great man, a great mind, but mind as such, small or great, has nothing to do with religion.

Religion comes out of no-mind. Religion is not a talent, it is your nature. If you want to be a great
painter, you have to be talented; if you want to be a great poet, you have to be talented; if you want to be a scientist, of course, you have to be talented; but if you want to be religious, no special talent is needed. Anybody, small or great, who is willing to drop his mind, enters into the dimension of the divine.

And of course, great talented men find it very difficult to drop their minds; their investment is
bigger. For an ordinary man who has no talent, it is very easy to drop the mind. Even then it seems so difficult. He has nothing to lose; still he goes on clinging. Of course, the difficulty is multiplied when you have a talented mind, when you are a genius. Then your whole ego is invested in your mind. You cannot drop it.

Rudolph Steiner founded a new movement called anthroposophy, against theosophy. He was a
theosophist in the beginning, then his ego started fighting other egos in the movement. He wanted to become the very head, the supreme-most of the theosophical movement in the world, the world head. That was not possible; there were many other egos. And the greatest problem was coming from J. Krishnamurti, who is not an ego at all. And of course, theosophists were thinking more and more towards Krishnamurti. He was becoming, by and by, the messiah. That created trouble in Rudolph Steiner’s mind.

He broke off from the movement. The whole German section of theosophy broke with him. He was really a very, very convincing orator, a convincing writer; he convinced people. He destroyed theosophy very badly, he divided it. And since then theosophy could never become whole and healthy.

Rudolph Steiner has an appeal for the Western mind, and that is the danger – because the Western mind is basically logic-oriented: reason, thinking, logos. He talks about it, and he says, ”This is the way for the Western mind.” No, Eastern or Western, mind is mind; and the way is no-mind. If you are Eastern, you will have to drop the Eastern mind. If you are Western, you will have to drop the Western mind.

To move into meditation, mind, as such, has to be dropped. If you are a Christian you will have to drop a Christian mind. If you are a Hindu, you will have to drop the Hindu mind. Meditation is not concerned with Christian, Hindu, Eastern, Western, Indian or German, no.

Source: from Osho book “Yoga: The Alpha and the Omega, Vol 10″

Question – AYN RAND, THE ORIGINATOR OF OBJECTIVISM PHILOSOPHY, WENT MAD AND COMMITTED SUICIDE. HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN TO SUCH A RARE, LOGICAL MIND?
Osho – Precisely! It happened because of such a logical, rational mind. The rational mind cannot go beyond suicide and madness. That is the ultimate that has to happen. If some logical person is not mad it simply means that he is not logical enough. If some logical person has not committed suicide yet, it simply means that he is mediocre. He has not touched the pinnacle of logicality. If you reach to the pinnacle of logicality, life loses all meaning – because logic cannot give any meaning.

Logic takes away all meaning. Logic is destructive, poisonous. It is love that gives meaning to life, it is love that blooms and flowers, it is love that sings and dances, it is love that becomes celebration. A logical mind by and by loses all possibility of loving – because love is so illogical it cannot exist with logic. They prohibit each other, they exclude each other.

If you love, you become illogical; if you are very logical, you become unloving. and without love, what is there to live by, to live with, to live for? What is there? Ayn Rand was a very egoistic, rationalistic, realistic woman. Her philosophy is that of absolute selfishness. If you are absolutely selfish, how can you be loving? It is impossible. Her philosophy is absolutely realistic, materialistic. When there is only matter, what is there to bloom into?

There is no soul. All search disappears. Life is flat and dull. There is no mystery. With the soul enter mystery and life. With mystery there is joy, because there is a possibility to enquire, to explore, to expand. There is a possibility that something may happen, can happen.

Man is more than he knows. You are more than you know. Not only that, you are more than you can ever know, because your intrinsic reality remains mysterious, always remains unknown, unknowable. You can go on knowing more and more and more but that does not reduce your mystery. That’s what we mean by soul – utterly mysterious.

For Ayn Rand there was no mystery. When there is no mystery, how can there be life? Then what is there to live for? Suicide seems to be the logical conclusion. And if you don’t commit suicide, then madness is the conclusion. Those seem to be the two alternatives. Either go mad – mad means go illogical, drop your rational mind – or commit suicide, drop this useless life. Jean Paul Sartre has said: ’Man is a useless passion.’

Now my feeling is that Sartre is not very, very logical, otherwise he would have committed suicide. If man is a useless passion, if there is no meaning in it, if life is meaninglessness, then why go on living? Why think of tomorrow – that you would like to exist tomorrow? That is very irrational. If nothing is going to happen, if nothing has ever happened, if nothing happens in the very reality, then why go on living? Why go on eating and why go on sleeping and getting up again and again? It is nauseating.

Another book of Sartre’s is NAUSEA. But it seems it is still philosophical, he has not taken it existentially – otherwise suicide would be the logical conclusion to the philosophy. Beware. These possibilities are in you too. If you become too logical, madness or suicide or both will be the conclusion.

That’s why I teach you love not logic, feeling not reasoning, heart not mind. Then life has such beauty, such beatitude, such joy, that one cannot contain it. It is so much, it is so over-flowing, so overwhelming.

You ask me: AYN RAND, THE ORIGINATOR OF OBJECTIVISM PHILOSOPHY, WENT MAD AND COMMITTED SUICIDE. HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN TO SUCH A RARE LOGICAL MIND? The question is from Sudheer Saraswati. I say ’Precisely.

Osho on Western philosopher Descartes

Osho : In the West there was a philosopher named Descartes – a deep thinker. He decided not to accept anything until he found the truth which cannot be doubted, so he began to reflect. He labored hard and he felt everything was doubtful. One may say ”God is,” but a doubt can be raised about it.

God may or may not be, but a doubt can always be created. ”There is heaven,” ”There is liberation” – it can all be doubted. Descartes said, ”I will believe only in a thing which cannot be doubted, not something that can be proved, or argued in favor of, no.

Something that cannot be doubted, something which is inevitable, indubitable… only then I will accept it.”

He searched and searched. However he too stopped at one point. He denied God, heaven, hell,
and everything else, but he got stuck at one point – ”Am I or not?”

Descartes said, ”This cannot be doubted, because even if I say ’I am not,’ then too I am needed to be able to say this.” It is like a person who is in the house and who answers the caller, ”I have gone out,” or ”Right now I am not in the house. Come back in a little while and then I may meet you because by then I will be back home.”

His very telling this will be the proof of his being at home. So the fact of my being is indubitable. This much is clear, that I am. Though what I am is not so clear. Am I a body, or a mind, or what? – this is not so clear.

Osho : One very great painter not much known in the West, although he was a Western man – he lived in the Himalayas. He was a Russian, Nicholas Roerich, and he belonged to the czar’s family. So while the revolution was happening and nineteen members of the czar’s family were slaughtered, even a six-month-old child – sometimes these revolutions can be so ugly – Nicholas Roerich escaped; he was just a boy at that time.

He lived in the Himalayas. He was a painter, but not a painter for art galleries and marketplaces. He never sold any of his paintings – not because people were not ready to purchase, but because he was not willing to sell. He said, “It is not a commodity, it is me spread on the canvas. How can I sell it?” He died with all his paintings in his house.

I have been to his house – he was very old at that time – and seeing that he was vegetarian, I asked, “You are a Russian, why should you be vegetarian?”

He said, “Because of my paintings. I cannot even destroy a painting, which is not alive. How can I destroy a living being for my food? And if I can destroy a lion or a tiger, then why not destroy a man?”

Because human meat will be more digestible, more in tune with you, what is wrong with the cannibal? Why is everybody against the cannibals? Just because they are eating human beings? But cannibals say human meat is very delicious. They say there is nothing so delicious on the earth as human meat, particularly the meat of small children.

If deliciousness and taste are decisive…. And perhaps they may be right, because they have eaten other foods also, and if they are saying it – and all cannibals agree…. But you can’t think of eating a man. How can you think of eating a tiger? How can you think of eating a deer? Just if there is no mind given to you by the past, or if you can put it aside and see directly, you will be simply amazed at what people have been doing.

Vegetarianism should not be anything moral or religious. It is a question of aesthetics: one’s sensitivity, one’s respect, one’s reverence for life. To me this is the law of karma. All other interpretations of it are absolutely wrong, just boo boo.

Osho on Allen Ginsberg, Lord Krishna

Osho : At the moment the leadership of the Krishna Consciousness Movement in the West has passed into the hands of that irrationalist poet Allen Ginsberg; so far the intelligentsia does not seem to have been impressed by it.

You said that the society in which Krishna was born was prosperous, but the Geeta and the Bhagwad mention Krishna’s friend, Sudama, who was the very picture of poverty. Krishna says in the Geeta that among sacrifices he represents Japa or chanting and that chanting will be the path for the Kali-Yuga, the Dark Age, in which we are living. Please comment.

No, I did not say that no one was poor in Krishna’s time, or that no one is poor in the present-day West. There are poor people in the West, but their society as a whole is affluent. In the same way, although poor men like Sudama existed in Krishna’s time, his society was very prosperous. A poor society is one thing; the existence of a handful of poor people in a rich society is different. The Indian society today is definitely poor, although there are Tatas and Birlas among us. The presence of Tatas and Birlas does not make the society affluent.

Similarly, in spite of the Sudamas, Krishna’s society was prosperous and rich. The question is whether a society on the whole is rich or poor. There are rich people even in an utterly poor society like India’s, and similarly there are poor people in the very affluent society of America. The society of Krishna’s time was rich; good things of life were available to the vast majority of people. The same is true in today’s American society. And only an affluent society can afford celebration; a poor society cannot.

As a society sinks into poverty it ceases to he celebrative, to be joyous. Not that there are no festivals in a poor society, but those festivals are lack-luster, as good as dead. When the Festival of Lights – Diwali – comes here, the poor have to borrow money to celebrate it. They save their worn out clothes for Holi – the Festival of Colors. Is this the way to celebrate a festival like Holi?

In the past, people came out in their best clothes to be smeared with all kinds of colors; now they go through it as if it is a kind of compulsory ritual. The festival of Holi was born when Indian society was at the peak of prosperity; now it is only dragging its feet somehow. In the past people were pleased when someone poured colors on their clothes; now in the same situation they are saddened, because they cannot afford enough clothes.

The West now can well afford a festival like Holi. They have already adopted Krishna’s dance; sooner or later they are going to adopt Holi as well. It does not need an astrologer to predict it. They have everything – money, clothes, colors and leisure – which is necessary to celebrate such a festival as Holi. And unlike us they will celebrate with enthusiasm and joy. They will really rejoice.

When a society on the whole is affluent, even its poor are not that poor; they are better off than the rich people of a poor society. Today even the poorest of America does not cling to money in the way the richest of India does. Living in a sea of poverty, even the rich people of this country share the psychology of the poor. Their clinging to money is pathetic.

I have heard that on a fine morning a beggar appeared at the doors of a house. He was young and healthy and his body was robust and beautiful. The housewife was pleasantly surprised to see such a beggar, he was rare, and she gave him food and clothes with an open heart. Then she said to the beggar, “How is it that you are a beggar? You don’t seem to be born poor.”

The beggar said, “It seems you are also going the same way. I gave away my wealth in the same way you gave me food and clothes a little while ago. You will not take long to join me in the street.”

Clinging to money is characteristic of a poor society; even its rich people suffer from this malady. And clinging disappears in a rich society; even its poor can afford to spend and enjoy what little they have. They are not afraid, they know they can make money when they need it.
It is in this sense that I said Krishna consciousness happens in an affluent society, and the West is really an affluent society.

The questioner also wants to know why the revolt, the breakthrough in the West is being led by people like Ginsberg, who are irrationalists. It is true that all the young rebels the West, whether they are existentialists, the Beatles, the beatniks, or the hippies or the yippies, are irrationalists who represent a revolt against the excessive rationalism of their older generations.

It is also true that the intellectuals of the West are yet uninfluenced by these offbeat movements. In fact, irrationalists appear only in a society that goes to the extreme of rationalism. The West has really reached the zenith of rationalism. Hence the reaction; it was inevitable.

When a society feels stifled and strangled by too much logic and rationalism, it inevitably turns to mysticism. When materialism begins to crush a people’s sensitivity they turn to God and religion. And don’t think that Ginsberg, Sartre, Camus, and others who speak about the absurd, the illogical are like illiterate and ignorant villagers. They are great intellectuals of irrationalism.

Their irrationalism, their turning to the unthinkable is not comparable to the ways of the believers, the faithful. It is a one-hundred-and-eighty-degree turn, like Chaitanya who after stretching thinking to its extremity, found that it was unthinkable.

So if Ginsberg’s statements and his poetry are illogical and irrational, it has nonetheless a system of its own. Nietzsche has said somewhere, “I am mad, but my madness has its own logic. I am not an ordinary madman; my madness has a method.” This irrationalism is deliberate. It stands on its own ground, which cannot be the ground of logic. It is a candid, ingenuous refutation of rationalism. Certainly it will not base its assault upon logic; if it does, it will only support rationalism. No, it opposes rationalism through an irrational lifestyle.

Somewhere Ginsberg is reading his poetry to a small gathering of poets. His poetry is meaningless; there is no consistency between one concept and another. All its similies and metaphors are just inane. Its symbolism is utterly unconventional; it has nothing to do with poetic tradition. It is really a great adventure; there is no greater adventure than to be inconsistent and unconventional.

He alone can have the courage to be inconsistent who is aware of his innate consistency, his inner integrity, whose innermost being is consistent and clear. He knows that however inconsistent his statements may be, they are not going to affect the integrity and consistency of his being.

People lacking in spiritual consistency and innate harmony weigh every word before they make a statemen
t, because they are afraid that if two of their statements contradict each other their inner contradictions will be exposed. One can afford to be inconsistent only when one is consistent in his being.

This Ginsberg is reading a poem which is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. It is an act of rare courage. Someone from among his listeners rises up in his seat and says, “You seem to be an audacious person, but to be audacious in poetry is nothing. Do you have the courage to act with audacity?”

And Ginsberg looks up at the questioner, takes off his clothes and stands naked before his listeners saying, “This is the last part of my poetry.” Then he says to the man who has interrupted him, “Now please take off your clothes and bare yourself.”
The man says, “How can I? I cannot be naked.”

The whole audience is in a state of shock. No one had thought that poetry reading would end like this, that its last part would come in the form of the nude poet. When they asked him why he did this he said, “It just happened; there was nothing deliberate about it. The man provoked me to act audaciously, and I couldn’t think of anything else. So I just concluded my poetry reading this way.”

This is a spontaneous act; it is not at all deliberate. And it is wholly illogical; it has nothing to do with Ginsberg’s poetry. No Kalidas, no Keats, no Rabindranath could do it; they are poets tied to tradition. We cannot think of Kalidas, or Keats, or Tagore baring himself the way Ginsberg does. Ginsberg could do it because he rejects logic, he refuses to confine life into the prison of syllogisms. He does not want to reduce life to petty mathematical calculations. He wants to live and live in freedom, and with abandon.

A man like Ginsberg cannot be compared with a gullible villager. He represents the climactic point of a profound rationalist tradition. When a rationalist tradition reaches its climax and begins to die, people like Ginsberg come to the fore to repudiate the rational. I think Krishna too, represents the peak point of India’s great rationalist tradition.

This country had once scaled the highest peaks of rationalist intelligence and thinking. We had indulged in hair-splitting analysis and interpretation of words and concepts. We have with us books that cannot be translated into any other languages of the world, because no other language possesses such refined and subtle words as we have. We have such words that only one of them can cover a whole page of a book, because we use so many adjectives, prefixes and suffixes to qualify and refine them.

Krishna comes at the pinnacle of a rationalist, intellectual culture that had left no stones unturned. We had thought everything that could be thought. From the VEDAS and Upanishads we had traveled to vedant where knowledge ends. VEDAS itself means the end of knowledge. Giants like Patanjali, Kapil, Kanad, Brihaspati and Vyas had thought so much that a time came when we felt tired of thinking. Then comes Krishna as the culmination, and he says, “Let us now live, we have done enough of thinking.”

Osho on Last wish of Albert Einstein

Osho : The East has created great geniuses, but we are still living in the bullock cart age because our geniuses simply meditated. Their meditation never came into action. If they had meditated for a few hours and used their silence and peace and meditativeness for scientific research, this country would have been the richest in the world – outer and inner, both.
The same is true about the West: they created great geniuses, but they were all involved with things, objects. They forgot themselves completely. Once in a while a genius remembered, but it was too late.

Albert Einstein, at the time of death, said his last words – and remember, the last words are the most important a person has ever spoken in his life, because they are a conclusion, the essential experience. His last words were, “If there is another life, I would like to be a plumber. I don’t want to be a physicist. I want to be something very simple – a plumber.”

A tired brain, a burned brain… and what was his achievement? – Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
This man was capable of becoming a Gautam Buddha. If he had looked inwards, he had such an insight that perhaps he would have gone deeper than any Gautam Buddha, because he looked towards the stars and went further than any astronomer has ever done. It is the same power; it is only a question of direction.