What about the man of being? – he has a direction, but he has no destination. He has a very subtle direction, but no destination. He has a quality: he has a light inside, and wherever he moves that light falls on his path. He has eyes to see, a direction, but no destination. He is enjoying and he is moving but his movement is not prefabricated. He has no plan. He is like a river, not like a railway train. There is direction, but not like a railway train, not running in a fixed pattern. His life will be zigzag. Sometimes he will be moving towards the north and sometimes he will be moving towards the south. He cannot be very consistent because consistency is part of the logical mind, it is not part of the being. He will be found many times to be inconsistent, even contradictory; but those contradictions are just on the surface. If you look deep you will find a subtle direction. Even in contradictions the direction is there.
But to know the man of being you need very deep eyes, penetrating eyes. To know the man of having, nothing is needed – just a little mind will do, a mediocre mind will do – because the man of having is also of the category of mediocre minds. But when you move into the inner world, all surfaces are lost and the depth is infinite.
The Bauls call this spontaneous man, sahaj manush – the novel man – he’s the new man. He is the man as everyone should be. And unless you become the novel man, you will miss – you will miss treasures, blessings, benedictions which were showering all around you, but you were blind and you could not see it.
I have heard:
Mulla Nasruddin was in love with a woman.
“Look darling,” he said to her, “here is a diamond engagement ring for you.”
“Oh, it is beautiful!” she claimed. “But honey, the diamond has a flaw in it.”
“You should not notice that,” said the Mulla. “Why, you are in love and you know what they say – ‘love is blind.’”
“Blind, yes,” she said, “but not stone blind.”
Even in love you continue to remain the man of the outside. Even in love you continue to think in terms of money, prestige, power. Even in love you don’t allow the unpredictable to assert, you don’t allow your innermost being to have its say. Even then you remain a manipulator.
Our minds are almost always interested in the very ordinary. It has to be so, because mind is outward oriented. The very orientation is towards the without. That’s how Jesus was not understood; he was a Baul, the novel man. If he had been born in Bengal, the land of the Bauls, he would have been understood better. They would not have crucified him. For centuries they have known mad people of God. They would have understood his language.
Jews could not understand his language. His language was not of the mind, his language was not of money, of the outside. He talked about the kingdom and they asked, “Where is your kingdom? What kingdom are you talking about?” – because they thought he was talking about the kingdom which is outside.
He said, “I am the king,” and they were worried. And they suspected that he was trying to sabotage the society, or that he was trying to conquer the society and become the king. They thought that he was a revolutionary. He was a rebellious man, not a revolutionary at all. He was not planning for a revolution, he was not a politician.