STUDIO ROBERT C. SMIT
Holy Hooker
FILOSOFIE
THE HOLY HOOKER
“One burning question: what about love?”
UG: “What love?”
“Well, people feel . . .”
UG: “Do you know about love or are you asking me?”
“What do you think about it? People are attracted to one another and feel good when they see someone in particular . . .”
UG: “Yes, and if you don’t get what you want out of that relationship, what is there in its place?”
“Nothing.”
UG: “Oh no! Then there is hate. Sure! And if you don’t want to call that hate, call it indifference or antipathy. So, love and hate go together; they are one and the same. Instead of calling this sex activity ‘love’, leave it alone, you see, and it falls in its rightful place. The sex relationship -- why cover it up with high-sounding words like ‘love’? It is always related to something: you love your country, you love your family or you love your neighbor. You know, it is always in relationship to something. When there are no two, there is no love there.
“You are interested in creating perfect and loving relationships in this world because all the relationships are terrible, painful. And we superimpose on that the divine love, cosmic love or god knows what. You want the relationship to be permanent, but there is no permanence at all. There is that demand for permanence because of man's sorrow. Permanent pleasure, permanent happiness, permanent bliss, permanent relationships - but things are constantly changing.
“Somebody asked me the question about some guru who says that ‘Sex is the means of putting yourself into a state of samadhi.’ Neither the man who suggests that technique as a means of putting yourself into a state of samadhi is an enlightened man, nor is the one who is practicing sex as a means to put himself into a state of samadhi going to be enlightened.
“As a matter of fact, sex is not necessary for the body; the body can survive without sex, but without food it cannot. I am not saying anything for or against sex.
“You see, they have done lots of experiments. Not only the sex act, but the very thought of sex is disturbing the chemistry of the whole body. They have observed how it is disturbing the whole chemistry of the body. It is essential for reproduction, to recreate, to carry on life. That’s all. It is not intended for your pleasures.
“It has become possible for men through the help of thought to have sex any time they want. But that is not possible for animals. Through the help of thought it has become possible for humans to have sex any time they want it. And it is the very same thing that has created the problem. You know, sex becomes a bore. It’s a bore, so you have to invent thousands and thousands of ways and techniques of having sex, hmm? You turn that into a problem. It is not a problem! For what has sex to do with you? It has a life of its own. What has the heart to do with you? It is functioning in its own way. What do the pancreas and the liver have to do with you? And what have you to do with them?”
UG and Margreet were having the next conversation together with some friends around, while I was installing my cassette recorder. The subject was that “Sex is never ‘peaceful.’”
UG: “Whenever or wherever there is the sex, the ‘better’ is also part of that situation.”
“The what?”
UG: “If there is sex, if there is any relationship, a better relationship and a better sex, more kicks and more sex also are part of that situation.”
“There is a book called The Happy Hooker. Do you know that book UG?”
UG: “The Happy Hooker, yes I have heard of that book. What’s the name of that woman, . . . It begins with 'X'. Yes, I remember, she has written two or three books and ultimately she comes to the idea of living with one person (laughs). After years, at last, she talks of love; and, you see, she has had sex with everybody she could imagine -- all the kicks. In the end she says there is some beauty in living with one person. Beautiful relationship!” (Laughing again.)
“I know that situation, but when I meet a man for the first time I have a kick, hmm?”
UG: “That is natural.”
“Yes, that’s natural, and so I am jolly well interested in sex. But I have been living together with my friend now for one and-a-half years already, but I am not so enthusiastic about him every day because he is not such a kick for me anymore. Please, don’t laugh UG! This is serious.”
UG: “No, I am not laughing. This is only natural.”
“Yes, but then I thought: well, it is so easy for a woman in The Happy Hooker -- everyday another man, everyday a new fresh kick. So, I am wondering what is more natural -- to live with one lover and reach to an ever-deeper relationship with him, or to live the way your impulse seduces you and perhaps live a more superficial life? Actually to me it seems more natural to do what your feeling tells you to do."
A very long conversation follows about “What is a more natural, better and healthy thing to do in the field of sexuality and relationships?” One of the conclusions arrived it is that “Anyway, it’s not really a question of sex.” Margreet says in this conversation that she likes to have sex with the nice people she meets, yet, at the same time, she doesn’t want to risk her relationship with me, her boyfriend. The problem concerning sexuality and relationship turns out to be a moral problem.
UG: “The fear is the fear of ‘losing what you have’. That is really the fear. You are not sure of the other man you want. There is the fear of ‘losing what you have’, of ‘losing what you know’ and you are uncertain of the situation here. So, it doesn't matter whether you sleep with your own boyfriend or with someone else.
“If that morality is absent, then sex goes! When you really can come to a point that it really doesn't matter, then you will not sleep even with this fellow, your own boyfriend, let alone others. But you are still caught up in the moral problem. You can’t say that you are free from the moral structure of the society; not at all! That’s humbug. You see, you can fool yourself; but it’s still a moral problem. The very questioning that is going on there, the discussion within yourself, the dialogue, the pros and cons means that you are still in the moral framework. When that is finished, there is no question of living with him or with anybody. It’s finished once and for all.”
“The whole sex?”
UG: “The whole thing is finished. Not only sex, everything is finished: looking at sunrise or sunset, climbing the mountains or swimming in the oceans, crossing them on rafters, sitting there and looking at the tree, the flower -- all of that is sensual activity, not different from sex. I am not condemning sex, you see, but the whole movement of pleasure is finished for you. And that is not what you really are interested in; so you will be miserable, no matter what you do. Always!
You are bound to be miserable. As long as you are caught up in this moral framework, you are still part of it. Don’t tell me that you are above all this morality!”
“No, but I also thought that the highest possible way of relating is . . .”
UG: “Whether you have sex with one person or ten persons, it really doesn't matter. You are not free from these moral problems. If you are free from the moral problem, you are free from sex too -- they go together. You can’t separate the two. This is why you are bound to be miserable, no matter what you do.”
“Yes, but perhaps we should practice this: first try with one partner, and then two, then three, then ten . . . and so on.”
UG: “Like this holy hooker (UG’s Freudian slip of the tongue?) . . . you will come back to the same.”
"But I thought that was the highest possible way of relating . . .”
UG: “You go and try it; there is no end to it.”
“You always say that there is no relationship possible. But I always thought that the highest relationship is not talking about something superficial like that but . . .”
UG: “Through sex, hmm?”
“Yes, sex, making love. But afterwards I realized, ‘No, that’s not true.’”
UG: “It’s not true. What you are saying is not true. It is not the highest.”
“Then . . . what is the highest?”
UG: “There is no highest.”
“There is no highest; yes, but, of course, we mean ‘highest’ in this practical day-to-day life of . . .”
UG: “No relationship is the highest. Finished, you see. No relationship at all. You are looking for a perfect relationship, ideal relationship and the highest. Temporarily you feel good. Go ahead, I am not a moralist. But why you are separating sex from the other activities of your life? You are still moralistic. That’s why you want to put sex on a different level. It’s like anything else. Any action of yours, the whole thing, is a series of reactions; you cannot isolate yourself. This is not an isolated action at all.”
“But, how do you say we separate sex from the other activities?”
UG: “You are discussing sex as if it is something different from other human activities. The society has made it into something special. You are not free; you are still caught up in that moral framework of the society. Yes, you can get away now with free sex -- the pill you can take. So the credit goes to the pill. Otherwise, you should bear children, and there are the laws and so many other problems; it is not such a simple thing as you imagine. You should thank those who have invented this birth control thing.’
“UG, when you were 18 or 16, you said to yourself: ‘Why should I meditate when there is this urge for sex?’ and you had wet dreams and so on.”
UG: “I did not rush and have sex.”
“No, but later on you did have sex. Did you experience or did you find out what exactly the sex wish is, what it consists of, or where it comes from?”
UG: “Sure. Meditation and sex, they go together. As long as you meditate, so long sex is there. So, I was not able to look at it that way in those days. I separated them. Now I know that both are the same. Thought is there, and as long as the thought is there, sex is there. The continuity of thought, the buildup you are talking about -- you want to shake hands and then you want to embrace the man, kiss him and then so on and on and on -- this is the buildup. It’s all bound to end up in bed. Sorry to say that. But what prevents that is your moral problem: you are not free from the moral problem at all. As long as you have this moral problem, so long sex is there. And whether you have sex with one person or with a thousand persons, it really doesn't matter.
“So when you are free from that moral problem, once and for all, not only in sexual relationships, but relationships in any human activity, then sex goes. Not only sex, the whole thing: the search, God, Reality, transformation -- everything is washed out of your system.
“You see, you don’t have the search and at the same time free yourself from sex. The search for something must come to an end. The search for happiness, perfect happiness -- that is all you are interested in -- perfect relationship or ideal relationship. That doesn't exist at all.”
"So the search includes everything?"
UG: “The search includes the search for truth and God. God must go, not only the God that people believe in and all the variations of that, but you see, your moksha, your liberation, freedom, mutation, transformation -- all that must be thrown out of your system. And not through any volition of yours.”
“At this moment I can’t see what it is to live without morality.”
UG: “Until then you will have sex in some form or the other. You can suppress it, sublimate it, do what you like; but it’s still there. Your wanting to free yourself from that is sex!”
“Even awareness is sex?”
UG: “Yes, wherever there is awareness, there is sex; wherever there is self-consciousness, there is sex.”
“But I don’t see anything wrong with sex.”
A visitor who has just arrived joins in the conversation.
UG: “I am not saying there is. It’s their problem. She asked me the question ‘What’s wrong with sleeping with ten men; why should I sleep with one man?’ I said, ‘It’s all right with me.’ But she is afraid of the consequences. You don’t give a damn whether your boyfriend will be happy or unhappy. That’s a fact.”
“And he will find other girls as well.”
UG: “Yes, he can find other girls and she other boys.”
“Yes, I am worrying about that too.”
UG: “Oh, already jealous too! You don’t mind going around, but if he does, you are going to object to that. Sure! No doubt about that. Until you are sure of the hold on the other branch, you don’t want to let go of this branch.”
“Yes. When I am looking at someone, some woman, and I see she is not a rival, I can look at Robert or her with ease. But if she is a real rival, I feel it in my stomach and I can’t look at that girl.”
A third visitor: “Really? Hmm, strange!”
“Oh, come on, you are jealous too!”
UG: “If you don’t feel that jealousy, there is something wrong; you are sick!”
“Well, maybe something is wrong, yes.”
UG: “That’s all. If you don’t have jealousy, envy, greed or any of those things, that means something is wrong; you are sick!”
“UG, when there is a beautiful woman walking by, and we are sitting at Chez Esther, the restaurant, and Robert has not yet seen her . . .”
UG: “What do you mean, ‘He hasn't seen her’?”
“Then I quickly start a conversation or I say ‘Look at her,’ or I get shy and I blush."
UG: “Even before you were looking, he was looking!”
“Sometimes not; then I see her first.”
UG: “No, no. Perhaps he is looking at some other girl even more beautiful then the one you saw! Anyway, feeling jealous is very natural. There are people who say they never feel jealous; they want to prove that they are something different. That is a sign of sickness. They think that they are spiritual or in some way different from other people; but they are not different.”
“Well I am surprised when you say that because I don’t have these reactions of feeling jealous or feeling something in my stomach,” the non-jealous lady says in a jealous tone!
UG: “Yes, you are a chicken anyway; you don’t even know that, come on!”
“Well, I am it; I am jealous one hundred percent!” says Margreet proudly, because she feels UG agrees with her.
The non-jealous lady says: “Yes, that could be in a different situation; then I can imagine that . . .”
UG: “Not in a different situation! You see, if you had a boyfriend and that boyfriend runs after another girl, boy, that would be the thing! Your spirituality and all that would be finished at once.”
“Oh yes, I would kill him,” says Margreet.
UG: “Kill him . . . or feel miserable. I know that. I don’t pay any attention to all those people who brag saying 'I am not jealous.' If you are not jealous, you must be sick. Or the situation has not yet arisen where your involvement is at stake. That will be the time!”
“You know, I was in an ashram and there they said: ‘When you feel jealous or angry, you have to drink five glasses of water and then it will go away.’”
UG: “And then it will come back and you will have to go to the toilet five times an hour. And that is why you don’t have time to be jealous; you will just run to the toilet!”
“And once I was in an acupressure centre and there I was very angry at somebody. Then the reaction was: ‘Oh, when you are angry, you just have to push here, and then the anger will go away.’”
UG: “You give so much importance to it because the whole approach to the problem is based on false morality, guilt! You have been fed on that kind of thing by these religious people all the time. You are being angry and yet you condemn it. That’s the strangest thing and that’s why you are all sick, neurotic. You can’t even look at it without these guilt complexes, guilt feelings. You can’t look at anything.”
“Is that only because of our education?”
UG: “Education, culture, religion, all of them are responsible. The god men say: ‘You can become a god man only when you free yourself from sex.’ That is not correct: that must go, your search for truth, your search for reality. Your sex and these things, they always go together. You can’t separate the two and put one on a higher level and say the other is something to be avoided. Not at all.
Your transformation, mutation or whatever you want to call it is a variation of the same thing.
Sex cannot be used as a means. Denial is not the way. You can have sex until the last moment, but still this kind of thing (enlightenment) can happen. That’s why I said they were all furious with me; I said: ‘A murderer, a thief, a con man or a rapist has as much a chance, if not a better chance, as all the spiritual seekers we have in the world put together.’ So, it’s not because of what they do or what they don’t do.”
“UG, you never feel jealous? When, for example, I look at Valentine now, you have no problems with it?” (Joking)
UG: “What do I care? (Everybody laughs) . . . even if I had a beautiful young wife! But the chances of my having a beautiful wife are none.”
“Well, maybe your interest is none, but your chances are very good.”
“Oh yes, I remember something from last year, UG. There was a film actress; she was coming here and you kissed her hand!” Margreet shouts out loudly.
UG: “Come on! I kissed her hand? Nonsense!”
“No, we saw you kissing her hand!”
UG: “Not I. She forced herself on me, but I didn't allow her.”
“Oh no! She did this . . .” (Makes a sound of kissing.)
UG: “Never! She took my hand, she did. I’d never do that.”
“No, but then you let it happen?”
UG: “I had no choice.”
“Yes, she was rather aggressive, hmm? Very strong.”
UG: “Yes, ‘I am a Mexican,’ she said. Also, once there was a girl in California. She always wanted to hug me, you see. So, she waited, waited and waited, and then, on the last day, just before I got into the car, she came running.”
“And she hugged you?”
UG: “Yes! I didn’t have a chance; I couldn't get out! Such things do happen. But I don’t care.”
DE HOLY HOOKER:
Seks, Kicks, Liefde, en Relaties met Godzelf.