NEVER BORN, SELF-CREATING.

He is not born of someone. God has no father, no mother. All who are begotten by the process of procreation enter the world of change. You have to find within your own self the unborn one. This body is born, it will die. It is born by the conjunction of two bodies; it will disintegrate some day. When the bodies that gave birth to it have perished, how can something remain which is a component of the two?

But within this, there is also that which was never born but has nevertheless come with the embryo. It was there even before the format ion of the foetus, and without it the body will one day return to no more than clay. The timeless has penetrated within this body; the body is no more than a piece of clothing to the timeless. That which is beyond time dwells within the time-bound. Only when you attain the timeless being within your own self will you be able to understand Nanak's words. You have to seek within yourself that which never changes, that which is changeless.

If you practice just sitting with your eyes closed, you will be unable to make out within yourself what age you are. You would feel yourself the same inside at the age of fifty as you felt at the age of five -- as if time has not passed for the world within you. Close your eyes and you will discover that nothing has changed inside.

What is changeless within is not born through the womb. You have come through your parents, but they are only the path for your coming; they do not bestow life on you. You have passed through them because the requirements of your body were nourished by them, but what has entered into your body has come from beyond. The day you attain the unborn within you, you will know that God has no origin, no source, because God is the entirety; He is the aggregate of all things. God means the totality. How can the totality be born to a particular someone? There is nothing beyond totality for there to be a mother and father, so He is "Never born, self-creating."

The meaning of self-creating is that He exists by Himself and has no support except His own; He is self-begotten and has no origin. The day you glimpse, however briefly, this fact within yourself, you will be rid of all anxieties and worries. Why do you worry? Your worry always arises out of your dependence on things, because any support can be snatched away from you at any moment. Today you have wealth? It may be gone tomorrow. What will you do then if you consider you are rich because of your wealth, not because of yourself?

A sannyasin is rich by his own right; he is rich because of himself so you cannot rob him of his riches. What will you steal from Buddha or from Nanak? You cannot make them poorer by taking anything from them; you cannot add to their wealth nor subtract from it. Whatever Nanak is derives from being one with the supreme support. You have nothing to lean on.

The supreme being is not a separate entity. God is without support. The day you too are prepared to be without support, your union with God will take place.

This definition of God is not the philosopher's interpretation, but is valid for the seeker so that he may know the characteristics of God. If you want to attain God, you will have to make these characteristics your religious practice. You have to try to be God in a small way. As you gradually begin to become like Him, you will find a rhythm establishing itself and a resonance struck between you and God.

NEVER BORN, SELF-CREATING.

HE IS ATTAINED BY THE GURU'S GRACE.

Why does Nanak say "by the guru's grace"? Is not man's own labor enough? It is necessary to understand this very subtle point, because Nanak stresses the guru a great deal. Later Nanak says that without the guru God cannot be attained. What is the reason for this? If God is omnipresent why can't I meet Him directly? What is the need to bring in the guru?

Krishnamurti says there is no need of a guru at all. This idea appeals to the intellect and to reasoning. What need to introduce the guru since I am born of God, as is the guru? Mind does not approve of the guru; so a congregation of egoists revolve around Krishnamurti. What he says is perfectly correct, that there is no need of a guru -- provided you are capable of annihilating your ego yourself.

But it is as difficult to drop the ego yourself as it is to lift oneself up by your bootstraps. It is just like a dog trying to catch his tail. The quicker he turns, the further his trail swishes away. If, however, a person is competent enough, then Krishnamurti is absolutely right that no guru is necessary.

But here lie all the complications. No sooner have you somehow conquered your ego then you will say, "I have dropped my ego," and there you introduce a new form of ego even more dangerous than the old. The guru is needed so that this new ego is not born. Even as you say, "By the grace of the guru," you can convey by your behavior: "See how humble I am! No one can be more humble!" And now these new paths are etched out by the ego. Till yesterday you were proud of your wealth; today you are proud of its renunciation and your humility. The rope is burned but the twists remain. How is this arrogance to be destroyed? -- hence Nanak's emphasis on the guru.

There is no difficulty in attaining God directly, because He is present right in front of you. Wherever you go, there He is. But the one difficulty is that you stand within yourself, and how will you remove this interfering you? Hence, "THE GURU'S GRACE." The seeker may labor but the attainment will always be by the guru's grace. This concept of the guru's grace will not allow your ego to form. It will destroy the old ego and prevent the new from forming; otherwise, you rid yourself of one ailment and contract another.

A very funny situation has arisen. A crowd of egoists have collected around Krishnamurti, people who do not wish to bow before anyone. They are completely at ease since they don't have to touch anyone's feet; they bow to no one. They firmly believe that the guru is not required, they will arrive by themselves. And this itself is the difficulty.

If there were a person like Nanak or Ramakrishna around Krishnamurti then his message would have been effective, but the crowd around him consists of those very people who are unable to drop their egos -- the ones in most urgent need of a guru. This is the ultimate irony: all those around Krishnamurti need a guru. Those who surrounded Nanak were people who could have done without a guru.