In this world of suchness
there is neither self nor other-than-self.
And once you merge – you are merged into a suchness, in tathata, in understanding – there is no one as you and there is no one as other-than-you, no self, no other-than-self. In a suchness, in a deep understanding of the nature of things, boundaries disappear.
Mulla Nasruddin was ill. The doctor examined him and said, “Fine, Nasruddin, very fine. You are improving, you are doing well, everything is almost okay. Just a little thing has remained: your floating kidney is not yet right. But I don’t worry a bit about it.”
Nasruddin looked at the doctor and said, “Do you think if your floating kidney was not alright that I would worry about it?”
The mind always divides: the other and I. And the moment you divide I and the other, the other becomes the enemy, the other cannot be a friend. This is one of the basic things to be deeply understood, you need a penetration into it: the other cannot be the friend, the other is the enemy. In his very being “the other,” he is your enemy. Some are more inimical, some less, but the other remains the enemy.
Who is a friend? – the least of the enemies, really, nothing else. The friend is one who is least inimical towards you and the enemy is one who is least friendly towards you, but they stand in a queue. The friend stands nearer, the enemy further away, but they are all enemies. The other cannot be a friend. It is impossible, because with the other there is bound to be competition, jealousy, struggle.
You are fighting with friends also – of course, fighting in a friendly way. You are competing with friends also, because your ambitions are the same as theirs. You want to attain prestige, power; they also want to attain prestige and power. You would like to have a big empire around you, they also. You are fighting for the same, and only a few can have it.
It is impossible to have friends in the world. Buddha has friends, you have enemies. Buddha cannot have an enemy, you cannot have a friend. Why does Buddha have friends? – because the other has disappeared, now there is nobody who is other than him.
And when this “other” disappears the “I” also has to disappear, because they are two poles of one phenomenon. Here inside exists the ego, and there outside exists the other – two poles of one phenomenon. If one pole disappears, if “you” disappears, “I” disappears with it; if “I” disappears, “you” disappears.