Chapter 8: Man Is Not Rational
When someone talks about the peak, not referring at all to the valley, his statements will be very rational; you can understand them, they are easy, they are consistent. When someone talks about the valley, never referring to the peak, he will also be rational. All philosophers are rational; you can understand them very easily. To understand them you need a little learning and training, that’s all, a discipline. But all the mystics are difficult to comprehend. In fact, the more you try to understand them, the more they become mysterious - because they talk about the peak and the valley together. They would like to talk about the valley and the peak simultaneously.
In the Upanishads it is said: “He is far and near.” What type of statement is this? Either he is far or he is near. But immediately the seer says, “He is far,” he adds, “He is near.” He is the greatest and he is the smallest. He is the atom and he is the whole. He is within you and without. Heraclitus said God is summer and winter. Summer? - it is okay; you can understand. Only winter? - that too is okay, you can understand. But summer and winter both? Then you feel dizzy. Then the mind says, “This statement is contradictory.”
Human logic seeks a noncontradictory statement - and the logos is contradictory. It uses contradiction just as an architect uses opposite bricks to make an arch; he puts bricks in opposition. The opposition gives the tension and the strength, and on that arch you can raise a big building. But if you do not put bricks in opposition to each other - logical, consistent, just like a peak or a valley, this bank or that, not both - then the building will fall; the arch cannot be made. It needs the tension of the opposites to create strength. Hence there is man and woman - they are the opposite bricks of life. Their very opposition creates the situation so that life can exist. They are the two banks so the river can flow. But the moment you talk about the peak and the valley together, then it becomes incomprehensible.
Human logic is consistent. The divine logos is contradictory yet consistent.
Human logic is partial. It tries to understand a part, and trying to understand a part it avoids all that contradicts it. It simply wants to forget all that is contradictory. But the divine is all. It doesn’t choose, everything is involved. And it is vast; it is not partial, it is total. That’s the difference between a religious approach and a philosophical approach. A philosophical approach is logical; that’s why Aristotle says man is a rational being. And Heraclitus says man is irrational - because your very reason makes you irrational. The moment you choose the part you have falsified the whole thing. Now this part is only in your mind. In existence this part is always with the opposite, never alone.
Human logic says God is male; then there are some believers in God who think God is female - but the logos must comprehend both. So Hindus have a concept of ardhanarishwar, that God is both male and female. And that is the true concept, that comes from the logos. It looks contradictory. You must have seen statues of Shiva as half man and half woman, half with one breast, half feminine, and half male. That statue looks absurd but that is the truth. And all your statues of God as male, or God as female, are irrational; they are not true because how can God be male? Then from where does the feminine arise? Then to whom will the feminine reach? Then in what source does the feminine exist?