Chapter 2: Living in Insecurity
Only that mind, only that person, lives in insecurity who lives untethered to the past. Insecurity - a deeper insecurity - means untethered to the past. And it has so many meanings because all that you know comes from the past. Your knowledge is of the past.
So one who renounces knowledge is really renouncing something. Your self comes from the past: you are nothing but accumulated experiences. So one who renounces self is renouncing something. All your desires and all your hopes and all your expectations - they all come from the past. One who renounces his past renounces his desires, renounces his hopes, renounces his expectations.
Now you will be just like an emptiness. A nothingness, a nobody. Sannyas means leaving all claims of being somebody. Now you are going into no identity, into nobodiness. So this is the last decision of your mind; with which the past is closed. The identity is broken. Now you are not continuous. The continuity is not there. You are new, you are reborn.
Everyone who is alive is qualified. Everyone who is alive is qualified to know this living in insecurity. And to me, if one has to live, one has to live in insecurity. Every arrangement for security is renouncing living. The more secure you are, the less living. The more dead you are, the more secure, also. For example, a dead man cannot die again so he is death-proof. A dead man cannot be ill so he is disease-proof. A dead man is so in security that those who go on living may seem foolish to him. They live in insecurity.
If you are alive at all, then you are insecure. The more insecure the more alive. So a sannyasin means to me a person who decides to live to the utmost, to the optimum, to the maximum. It is just like a flame burning from both ends.
There is no obligation. There is no commitment. You are not bound to any discipline at all. If you want to call insecurity a discipline, that is another matter. Of course, it is an inner discipline. You are not going to be anarchic; it seems - from what I have said - it seems that the person will be anarchic. No. Anarchy is always bound with order - with the system. Disorder is always rebellion against the order. If you renounce order, you can never be disorderly. It is not denying order. It is not denying order, it is just renouncing. And renouncing means: if now you have to be in order, it will now be just an act, a play for others’ sake. You will not be serious about it. It will be just a rule of the game: you walk on the left or on the right for others’ sake, for traffic’s sake, but there is no seriousness about it. Nothing is serious in it.
So the sannyasin is not going to be disorderly. As far as he himself is concerned - as far as his inner consciousness is concerned - now there will be no order. That does not mean there will be disorder, because disorder is always a part of the order. When there is order, there is a possibility of disorder. When there is no order, there is no disorder. You become spontaneous. Moment to moment you live, moment to moment you act. Each moment is enough unto itself; you do not decide for it. You make no decision how to act. The moment comes to you and you act. There is no pre-determination. There is no pre-plan.