Stalin and Mao both did some significant experiments – dangerous, and against man’s freedom, but significant because they revealed several things. A man who had not committed a murder can be made to confess that he had done it, and he will even state this in court. And the absurdity happened: the actual murderer was caught, and yet a brainwashed man had confessed to a crime which he had not committed and had been hanged for it. And he had not confessed under any pressure. What is new about it is that he was not beaten or forced to confess, he was simply brainwashed and then made to confess. Once brainwashed, it is easy to put anything into the memory.

If a man is kept awake for seven days and not allowed to sleep he will become deranged. He will not be clear about his states – whether he is dreaming or sleeping or waking. If he is not allowed to sleep or dream for seven days he will start dreaming with open eyes; then he will not be certain whether the wall in front of him actually exists or only appears to be there.

As soon as he is unable to distinguish between the dream and reality he becomes vulnerable, anything can be put into or taken out of his brain. At this vulnerable time recordings are being played giving him new ideas and erasing others. He is now suggestible, and will accept whatever you tell him; whatever you thrust upon him will go deep into his unconsciousness. He can even confess in a court that he has committed a murder because that thought has been put deep into his mind. He cannot negate it – it is beyond his control. He himself now believes that he has committed the crime, because his memory has been interfered with.

But until recently no one had been able to attack and break into the safe of the memory, so the wise men have written – they should not be called wise, they were only knowledgeable scholars…they wrote that money can be stolen, but not knowledge. But now it can be stolen, because it is also just an accumulation. The habit of accumulating is the same, it does not make any difference what one accumulates – postage stamps, wealth or knowledge – no difference. The joy of accumulating belongs to the outside.

That is why so much value is placed on nonpossessiveness, on not accumulating. Nonpossessiveness does not mean the renunciation of outer possessions it means the renouncing of the attitude and the desire to accumulate. Only then is the inner journey possible.

Sattva, piety, is also a kind of accumulation. Someone proudly says, “I have been on a fast for three months.” He did not accumulate anything, not even the food which accumulates within the body. He did not even accumulate food within the body – in those three months his body lost weight; he lost something and accumulated nothing. But he accumulated a three-months-fast worth of religious merit! He has accumulated this. Now he wants to brag that he has fasted for three months. This is the same accumulating attitude.

Another man says, “I gave so much to charity.” In giving to charity one is not accumulating; on the contrary, in giving to charity one is losing. One loses money but accumulates the pride of charity: “I gave so much to charity.”