The first question:
You often speak about the real, the authentic man. Could you say something about the real and authentic woman…or even your ideal woman?
This old rotten habit of thinking about man and woman separately has to be dropped. They are not separate. Authenticity is authenticity – it does not matter whether a man is authentic or a woman is authentic. Spontaneity is spontaneity – it does not become feminine, it is not masculine.
The very idea of thinking of man and woman as separate beings has created a split in the human mind. Man is a unisex. Each man is woman and each woman is man too. We are human beings. Nobody is a man as such and nobody is a woman as such.
Once you divide, you are in trouble. Once you divide, then a thousand and one questions arise: who is superior? And who is to dominate? And who is to be dominate? Then humanity suffered long from male chauvinism. And there is a possibility that sooner or later humanity will suffer again – from female chauvinism. The Lib. people are working hard for it. They would like to do all the nasty things that men have done to them – they would like to do them to men. This is not going to help! You go on replacing one disease with another disease.
Woman has suffered much, that is true. But just by putting things upside-down, nothing is going to happen. Then man will start suffering. And this way the wheel goes on moving. If we really want to stop all this nonsense then we should start thinking about human beings, not about man and woman. That should be a very basic approach.
So when I am talking about authenticity or spontaneity or love, I am not considering man and woman as separate. They are one. They are parts of one whole, they are together. That’s why there is a constant attraction between man and woman – because they both feel half. Man alone feels deprived, something is missing. Woman alone feels deprived, something is missing.
And it is so on many planes. There have been men, there have been women, we can think about them as if they were not in any need of the other. For example, a Buddha or a Mahavira. Now, we can think about Buddha that he does not need a woman, but that is not true. That is only so on the surface. His gestalt has changed – he is the master now, and he needs the disciples. Now the disciples function as the feminine – the active and the passive. He does not need a wife – that is true, that’s certainly true – but that does not mean that he does not need the feminine. That simply means that on another plane the feminine has started asserting itself. Now the master needs the disciples, otherwise the master feels something is missing.