You may think you are able to, but that too is a mistake. You also have been unable to describe the taste. Not only the one who is unable to speak but also those who can speak have been able to describe it. And if I am to insist on your describing it, then at the most you can put the molasses in my hand and ask me to taste it. There is no other way. But at least molasses can be put in your hands so you can taste it, whereas even that is not possible with spirituality.
There are no spiritual scriptures in the world. Of course there are scriptures that give pointers towards spirituality – the Gita is one of them – but these pointers are within the mind. They point to beyond the mind, but they themselves are within the mind. Their science is the science of psychology; their basis is psychology. Even the highest flight of scripture is psychological: the highest possibility of words is still within the realms of the mind, the ultimate boundary of any expression is still mental. As long as there is mind, expression is possible. Where the mind ceases, all remains unexpressed.
So when I called the Gita a psychology, I didn’t mean it to be something like Watson’s psychology, something like behaviorism, or something like Pavlov’s “conditioned reflex.” All these psychologies are closed in on themselves and they are not willing to accept any reality beyond the mind. Some of them are not even ready to accept the reality of mind itself. They say: “Mind is just a part of the human body. Mind means brain. There is no mind anywhere else. Mind is simply a product of our blood, bones, and marrow. Mind is nothing separate from the body.”
The Gita is not this kind of psychology. The Gita is the kind of psychology which indicates all that which is beyond the mind. But nevertheless, it still remains psychology. I will not call it a spiritual scripture – and not because there is some other spiritual scripture somewhere: there is no spiritual scripture anywhere. The very proclamation of spirituality is: “My existence is not possible in any scripture. I cannot be contained in words. I cannot be bound by any boundary lines of the intellect.” Spirituality is an experience that transcends all boundaries, that makes all words futile and all expressions hollow.
There is a statement by Manu somewhere that says: “It is all right to kill the tyrant.” So permission is given by the scriptures – and Arjuna knows very well that Duryodhana and his accomplices are all tyrants. Yet in his heart Arjuna hesitates to kill them. What is the reason for this?
The first thing is that what Manu is saying is simply social ethics; he is talking about a social code. Manu’s statements are not spiritual. Manu’s statements are not even psychological. His statements are a part of social norms and behavior. Hence, if you want to place Manu somewhere you will have to place him with Marx and Durkheim and others like that. Manu’s status is not of any deep significance.