This is in continuation to the previous articles:
Development of the Navel Center (Part I)

Buddha is not an individual, Buddha is a phenomenon. No individual factors are meaningful; just your being is enough to be a Buddha. The center is already there, functioning; you have to discover it. So the techniques for the heart are techniques for developing something, and the techniques concerning the navel center are concerned with uncovering. You have to uncover. You are already a Buddha; you only have to know the fact.

So there are two types of persons- Buddhas who know that they are Buddhas, and Buddhas who do not know that they are Buddhas. But all are Buddhas. As far as existence is concerned, everyone is the same. Only in existence is there communism; in everything else communism is absurd. No one is Equal; inequality is basic in everything else. So it may look like a paradox if I say that only religion leads to communism, but I mean this communism: this deep equality of existence, of being. In this you are equal to Buddha, to Christ, to Krishna, but in no other way are two individuals equal. Inequality is basic as far as outer life is concerned; equality is basic as far as inner life is concerned.

So these one hundred and twelve methods are not really for developing the navel center; they are for uncovering it. That is why instantly sometimes one becomes a Buddha, because there is no question of creating something. If you can look at yourself, if you can go deep down into yourself, all that you Ed is already there. It is already the case, so the only question is how to be thrown to that point where you are already a Buddha. Meditation doesnt help you to be a Buddha; it only helps you to become aware of your Buddha hood.

Are all enlightened ones navel centered? For example, is Krishnamurti head- or navel centered? Was Ramakrishna heart- or navel-centered?

Every enlightened one is navel centered, but the expression of each enlightened one may flow through other centers. Understand the distinction clearly. Every enlightened one is navel-centered; there is no other possibility. But the expression is a different thing.

Ramakrishna expresses himself from the heart. He uses his heart as the vehicle of his message. Whatsoever he has found at the navel he express through his heart. He sings, he dances-that is his way of expressing his bliss. The bliss is found at the navel, nowhere else. He is centered at the navel, but how to say to others that he is centered at the navel? He uses his heart for the expression.

Krishnamurti uses his head for that expression; that is why their expressions are contradictory. If you believe in Ramakrishna you cannot believe in Krishnamurti. If you believe in Krishnamurti you cannot believe in Ramakrishna, because belief is always centered in the expression, not in the experience. Ramakrishna looks childish to a man who thinks with reason: What is this nonsense-dancing, singing? What is he doing? Buddha never danced, and this Ramakrishna is dancing, He looks childish.

To reason the heart always looks childish, but to the heart reason looks useless, superficial. Whatsoever Krishnamurti says is the same. The experience is the same as it was for Ramakrishna or Chaitanya or Meera. But if the person is head-centered, his explanation, expression is rational. If Ramakrishna sees Krishnamurti he ill say, Come on, let us dance. Why waste your time? Through dance it can be expressed more easily, and it goes deeper. Krishnamurti will say, Dance? One gets hypnotized through dance. Do not dandance. Analyze! Reason! Reason it out, analyze, and be aware.