Pages

Showing posts with label Osho on Body. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Osho on Body. Show all posts

Monday, 18 February 2013

Osho on Sympathy and Empathy

Osho on Sympathy and Empathy
Osho on Sympathy and Empathy : Sympathy has been looked upon as a very valuable attribute. It means you become unhappy and show your sorrow on seeing some one else unhappy. It also means ‘to experience’, that is to experience along with another. But the person who experiences unhappiness when the other is unhappy does never experience happiness when the other is happy. You show your feelings of sorrow and unhappiness if anybody’s house catches fire, but you do not show happiness if some one else builds a big building. It is very important to understand this matter. What does this mean?
This means sympathy is a kind of deception. That sympathy is genuine when you experience unhappiness in the miseries of others and experience joy and happiness in the happiness of others. But we are able to experience or show unhappiness in another’s unhappiness, though many a time we are unable to experience happiness in another’s happiness. That is why, it will not be correct to say we are able to show sorrow when another is unhappy’. If we are able to be happy in the happiness of others, then and then only, would it be proper to show our sorrow in their unhappiness. On the contrary, we derive some pleasure in the unhappiness of others. We take some pleasure in another’s difficulties. We become fully delighted in others’ miseries. So when you go to show your sorrow in others’ miseries, try to examine within you whether you derive some pleasure or not at that time.
In such a situation. one interesting thing is that you feel you are the person showing sympathy and the other is in a position to receive it. When that another person comes into the position of receiving sympathy he becomes a beggar and you become the donor effortlessly. When That person comes into the state of receiving your sympathy, you come into a patronising position and he becomes an humble or low person. And if you check up within your heart, you will find the presence of a kind of pleasure in showing your sorrow for his condition. You are sure to get it. And if you don’t get it, you will be the person who can be completely happy in another’s happiness. We become jealous of another’s happiness, we are resentful. So, the other aspect of this matter tells us that we are unable to be unhappy in another’s unhappiness, but we have been naming it ‘sympathy’. I have been talking of this Kind of feeling which is generally known as sympathy. So I thought it proper to select another word empathy.
‘Sympathy’ is a false thing, it is deception And if we understand fully that if the sympathy of someone is genuine, that is, he experiences unhappiness in another’s unhappiness and experiences happiness in another’s happiness, even then it remains as violence, it cannot be nonviolence because as long as there is another, it cannot fulfil the conditions of nonviolence. Nonviolence is an experience of non-duality. It is the experience that apart from the other there is also I. It will certainly be violence if your experience of feeling unhappy on seeing another unhappy is false. And even if the feeling be true, I remain I and the other remains the other. The bridge between the two is not broken and there is no possibility of nonviolence. To know the other as the other is also violence. Why? Because I am living in ignorance as long as I consider the other as the other. In fact the other is not the other.
Empathy does not mean knowing that the other is becoming unhappy but it means I myself have become miserable. It is not knowing that the other has become happy, but it means I myself have become happy. It is not like this, that the moon is shining in the sky; but it is I too have been shining. It is not that the sun is rising but that I have risen. It is not that flowers have blossomed but it is I who have blossomed. Empathy means nonduality. Empathy means oneness. Nonviolence is oneness.
So, there are three states: one is false sympathy, which is violence, pure and simple; two, genuine sympathy which is a very subtle form of violence, and three, empathy which is nonviolence. It may be violence or a subtle form of violence; it may be genuine sympathy or false sympathy — all these are happenings at the mental level. Empathy is a spiritual happening.
lt is never possible for us to be one on the mental level with someone else. My mind has a separate entity, your mind has a separate entity. My body has a distinct entity, your body has a distinct entity. It is not possible to have unity or oneness on a physical and mental level. Unity or oneness is possible only on the spiritual level, because we are already on the spiritual level. Just as the water in a pitcher sunk in water is the same as the water outside the pitcher, there is only an earthen wall of the pitcher between them. If that wall is broken, the two waters would become one.
There is a wall of mind and body which prevents us from meeting the other, which stops us from becoming one with another. We all are like earthen pitchers in the ocean of consciousness. Pitcher will be distinct and separate but that which is in it is not separate. One who experiences nonviolence, knows the Self, knows also that even though pitchers may be separate, the thing within them is one and the same. That experiencing of ‘one’ is nonviolence. Therefore, it cannot be sympathy because the other is necessary in sympathy. The other is not eliminated from it.
Sympathy is that which is beyond the mind. It is not in the mind or below it, but it is above and beyond the mind. And this happening which takes place beyond the mind is spiritual. Me alone can call it spiritual who knows what is in an atom is also there in the Universe. He alone can call it spiritual who knows that a drop of water and an ocean are one. One who has known one drop perfectly well has got nothing more to know about the ocean. When a drop is known the whole ocean is known. He has known the ocean within all who has known the drop within himself. Then he does not die because there is nothing left. Then that ego, that ‘I’ has disappeared because no ‘thou’ is seen there. As long as there is ‘thou’, there is ‘I’. The pair of ‘thou and I’ is always together. Martin Boehme’s book I AND THOU IS a very valuable book. According to Martin Boehme’s idea, all the relationships of life are the relationships of ‘I and thou’. But there is yet another world which is beyond ‘I and thou’. There is another world of real life which is not of relationships but is of life-energy, of God, where there are no I and thou.
Empathy is the highest peak of spirituality, and sympathy is our temporary worldly practice. This sympathy is generally 99 per cent false. We do not simply deceive others but deceive ourselves also. And even if it is one per cent genuine, ‘I’ and ‘thou’ still remain Pitchers do remain there. And perhaps we peep from one pitcher into another also. And even then we do not have any idea that there is that ‘One’ between the two pitchers, that ‘one is flowing between the two’.
I call that element empathy where there remains ‘One’ only, where there is not other. You may call it nonduality, or Brahma, or God, you can call it what you like. You can call it existence also. Life attains its highest peaks, its peak experiences where there is ‘One’ only. When ‘thou and I’ have fallen off, one realises that relationship of ‘thou and I’ is surely violence.
Life is a continuous flow, it is an unbroken stream, it is one, but we are unable to experience that oneness, because we have bu;lt ramparts around us, we have built our own walls, we have surrounded us from all sides, we have created boundaries, in fact they are not there. They are made by us and they are temporary. These boundaries exist nowhere. If we ask a man of spiritual eminence he would say the same thing. The spiritual person would say so because he has experienced the expansion of the soul, and the scientist would say so because he tried to Find out all boundaries, but could not see them anywhere.
If you ask a scientist ‘where does your body end?’ he would reply ‘it is difficult to answer the question. Does it end at bones? No, it does not end in bones, because there is flesh on the bones. Does it end in flesh? It does not end there because there is the covering of skin on it. Does it end at the layer of the skin? It does not end there because the layer of atmosphere is necessary outside it. If that is not there, there would be no bones, and no flesh. Does it end at the atmosphere layer? No, the atmosphere layer ends at two hundred miles above the earth. And if this atmosphere layer does not get the sun s rays, it would be no more there. The sun is one hundred million miles away from the earth. So does my body end at the skin? One hundred million miles away? Even our sun would be cold if it does not continuously get rays of light from great sunS. Then the question is, where does my body end?
The scientist says, we have investigated all the so-called boundaries, but we did not find them. The spiritualist says, when we looked within, we saw the limitless. The scientist talks in negative language; he says, there are no boundaries. The spiritualist talks in positive language; he says it is limitless. Both the statements mean the same thing. Today, religion and science stand very near each other. All their pronouncements stand very near one another. The scientist cannot say where our body ends. This body ends there where the Universe might be over.
I call this experience Empathy, when the stars are not far off, but when they begin moving within me, when I am not far off from them and I begin to dance on their rays. And when the waves of the ocean are not far from me, they become my waves; and when I am not far from them, I become a part of them. And when the flowers of trees become my flowers, the dried leaves fallen on the ground become my leaves, then I am not aloof from all these things. There is no greater delusion than the feeling of aloofness. To have the feeling of separateness is the greatest illusion, but we go on entertaining it.
To entertain such a feeling is useful, as there would be difficulty if it is not entertained. I cannot call it my wealth which is yours. Taking away your clothes, I cannot convert them into my clothes. Following worldly behaviour, your shop is not my shop, your building is not my building, though you would say ‘everything is yours’ when I am a guest in your house, but the statement is not to be taken seriously. So our purpose is served. But life is beyond such temporary arrangements. Such arrangements make certain indications and the worldly intercourse goes on. But one who considers such arrangements, such worldly intercourse as life, remains outside the great mysteries of life. Doors of the great palace of life do not open for him, there is no music of life-flute for him, the voice of God is not heard by him. In his pursuit of utility, he misses the life which is nondual, boundless and endless. One has to seek that nonduality beyond utility. It is to be investigated beyond my suggestions. It is to be sought after till it is achieved. Its achievement is called empathy by me. It is the nonviolence, it is the love, it is the nonduality, it is the liberation.
Source: Osho Book “The Perennial Path: The Art of Living”

Osho – How i can meditate over something without using my mind

Osho on Meditation without using Mind
Question: Osho, Please explain how i can meditate over something without using my mind.
Osho
: Dinesh, Meditation has nothing to do with mind; meditation simply means a state of no-mind. The functioning of the mind is the only disturbance in meditation. If you are trying to achieve meditation THROUGH mind you are bound to fail, doomed to fail. You are trying to achieve the impossible.
A Zen initiate was meditating for years and whenever he would come to his Master, whatsoever experience he would bring to the Master, the Master would simply reject: “It is all nonsense. You go back and meditate again.”
One day the Master came to the but of the disciple — he was sitting in a Buddha posture. The Master shook him and told him, “What are you doing here? If we needed stone Buddhas we have many in the temple! Just by sitting like a stone Buddha you will not attain to meditation. Do what I have been telling you to do. Just by stilling the body, your mind is not going to disappear, because it is through the mind that you are enforcing a certain discipline on the body. Anything done by the mind is going to strengthen the mind. It is a nourishment for the mind.”
A year passed. The Master came again. The disciple was sitting almost in a kind of euphoria, enjoying the morning breeze and sun with closed eyes, thinking that he was meditating. The Master took a brick and started rubbing it on a stone in front of the disciple. It was such a disturbance that finally the disciple had to shout, “What are you doing? Are you trying to drive me crazy?”
The Master said, “I am trying to make a mirror out of this brick. If one goes on rubbing it enough I think it will become a mirror.”
The disciple laughed. He said, “I always suspected that you were a little mad — now it is proved! The brick can never become a mirror. You can go on rubbing it on the stone for lives together; the brick will remain a brick.”
The Master said, “That shows some intelligence! Then what are you doing? For years you have been trying to make meditation out of the mind; it is like trying to make a mirror out of a brick.”
And the Master threw the brick in the pond at the side of the tree the disciple was sitting under. The brick made a great splash in the pond, and the very sound of it was enough to do the miracle. Something awakened in the disciple. A sleep was broken, a dream was shattered: he became alert. For the first time he tasted something of meditation.
And the Master immediately said, ” This is it!”
It happened so unexpectedly — the disciple was taken unawares. He was not waiting for this to happen, that the Master would suddenly throw the brick into the pond, and the splash…
Basho has a beautiful haiku:
The ancient pond.
The frog jumps in.
The sound…
That’s all. The sound can awaken you. Meditation is not a question of effort because all effort is going to be through the mind, of the mind, by the mind. How can it take you beyond the mind? You will go round and round IN the mind. You have to wake up! Mind is sleep. Mind is a constant process of dreaming, desiring, thoughts, memories.
Dinesh, you ask me: PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW I CAN MEDITATE OVER SOMETHING WITHOUT USING MY MIND.
Can’t you see something just with your eyes? Can’t you watch something without bringing your mind in? The birds chirping, this silence… What need is there of the mind? It is a question of watchfulness not of concentration.
But it is not only your problem, it is the problem of millions of people who become interested in meditation all over the world. They all mistake concentration for meditation. Concentration is something of the mind. It is being taught in the schools, colleges, universities. It has its uses — I am not saying it is useless. It is focusing on a certain object.
In science it is needed. You have to focus your mind on a particular object totally so that you can observe deeply. You have to exclude everything else, you have to break it out of everything else. You have to narrow down your consciousness; you almost have to make a pinpoint of it That’s a scientific way as far as the objective world is concerned.
But as far as the subjective world is concerned it is of no help, not at all. There you are not to focus your mind on anything — on the idea of God or on some inner light, flame, love, compassion — you are not to concentrate at all; you have to be simply aware of all that is.
The man of concentration can be distracted easily; anything can become a distraction because he is trying to do something unnatural. Just a child crying, and he will be distracted; the traffic noise, and he will be distracted; an airplane passing by, and he will be distracted; a dog starts barking, and he will be distracted. Anything can distract him. And of course, when he is distracted he will feel miserable, frustrated — he has failed again. The man of meditation cannot be distracted for the simple reason that he is not concentrating in the first place.
Existence is not linear, it is simultaneous. For example, I am speaking here, the birds are chirping, the traffic noise is there, the train is passing by — all these things are happening together. You have to be simple, silent, watchful, witnessing all that is — no need to exclude anything because the excluded thing will try to distract you. If nothing is excluded, if your awareness is all-inclusive, then what can distract you? Can this bird distract you? In fact, it will enhance your silence. Nothing Can distract you because you are not in a tense state. Concentration is tension, hence the word “attention”. It comes from the same root, “tension”. Awareness is not attention; awareness is relaxation, it is rest.
So rest silently. Thoughts will pass; there is no need to he worried — what can they do? Desires will come and go. Watch them coming and going. Don’t have any evaluation. Don’t say, “This is good; this is bad.” Don’t say, “Aha! This is something great, spiritual, far out!” Some sensation in the spine — it may be just an ant crawling up and you start feeling your kundalini is rising, or just imagination — you see some light inside, which is not difficult… You can see light, you can see colors, psychedelic colors. You can experience beautiful things, but it is all imagination, howsoever colorful, howsoever beautiful.
Don’t start saying that this is good that Jesus is standing in front of you or Krishna or Buddha and that now you are starting to feel you are coming closer and closer to the ultimate realization. Buddha says, “If you meet me on the Way, kill me immediately!” He means: If I come in your meditation, don’t start feeling very good about it, because if you start feeling good about it you will start clinging to the idea — and it is only an idea. Just watch it with no preference, with no choice. If you can be choicelessly aware of everything outside and inside, meditation will happen one day. It is nothing that you have to do.
You can do only one thing and that is to learn the art of watching, watching without any judgment. Then one day you simply relax, and in that total relaxation there is pure awareness. All thoughts disappear, all desires disappear; the mind is found no more. When mind is not found, this is meditation. A state of no-mind is meditation.
So you have been misunderstanding me. When I say “Meditate”, I mean “Watch”. If I say “Meditate on the songs of the birds”, I am simply saying “Watch”. I am not saying “Concentrate” — I am against concentration. And because I am for watchfulness you can watch anything. You can sit in the marketplace and watch people and that will be meditation. You can sit in the railway station and you can watch all kinds of noises: the trains coming and the passengers getting down and the coolies shouting and the vendors, and then the train goes away and a silence falls over the station. You simply watch, you don’t do anything.
And slowly slowly you start relaxing, your tensions disappear. Then insight opens up like a bud opening and becoming a flower. Great fragrance is released. In that silence is truth, is bliss, is benediction.
Source: Osho Book “Tao: The Golden Gate, Vol 1″

Osho, Are children really so intelligent as you always say they are

Osho, Are children really so intelligent
Question: Osho, Are children really so intelligent as you always say they are?
Osho
: Gautami, Intelligence is not something that is acquired, it is inbuilt, it is inborn, it is intrinsic to life itself. Not only children are intelligent, animals are intelligent in their own way, trees are intelligent in their own way. Of course they all have different kinds of intelligences because their needs differ, but now it is an established fact that all that lives is intelligent. Life cannot be without intelligence; to be alive and to be intelligent are synonymous.
But man is in a dilemma for the simple reason that he is not only intelligent, he is also aware of his intelligence. That is something unique about man, his privilege, his prerogative, his glory, but it can turn very easily into his agony. Man is conscious that he is intelligent; that consciousness brings its own problems. The first problem is that it creates ego.
Ego does not exist anywhere else except in human beings, and ego starts growing as the child grows. The parents, the schools, colleges, university, they all help to strengthen the ego for the simple reason that for centuries man had to struggle to survive and the idea has become a fixation, a deep unconscious conditioning, that only strong egos can survive in the struggle of life. Life has become just a struggle to survive. And scientists have made it even more convincing with the theory of the survival of the fittest. So we help every child to become more and more strong in the ego, and it is there that the problem arises.
As the ego becomes strong it starts surrounding intelligence like a thick layer of darkness. Intelligence is light, ego is darkness. Intelligence is very delicate, ego is very hard. Intelligence is like a rose flower, ego is like a rock. And if you want to survive, they say — the so-called knowers — then you have to become rock-like, you have to be strong, invulnerable. You have to become a citadel, a closed citadel, so you cannot be attacked from outside. You have to become impenetrable.
But then you become closed. Then you start dying as far as your intelligence is concerned because intelligence needs the open sky, the wind, the air, the sun in order to grow, to expand, to flow. To remain alive it needs a constant flow; if it becomes stagnant it becomes slowly slowly a dead phenomenon.
We don’t allow children to remain intelligent. The first thing is that if they are intelligent they will be vulnerable, they will be delicate, they will be open. If they are intelligent they will be able to see many falsities in the society, in the state, in the church, in the educational system. They will become rebellious. They will be individuals; they will not be cowed easily. You can crush them, but you cannot enslave them You can destroy them, but you cannot force them to compromise.
In one sense intelligence is very soft, like a rose flower, in another sense it has its own strength. But that strength is subtle, not gross. That strength is the strength of rebellion, of a non-compromising attitude. One is ready to die, one is ready to suffer, but one is not ready to sell one’s soul.
And the whole society needs slaves; it needs people who function like robots, machines. It does not want people, it wants ancient mechanisms. Hence the whole conditioning is: make the ego strong. It serves a double purpose. First: it gives the person the feeling that now he can struggle in life. And secondly: it serves the purposes of all the vested interests. They can exploit him; they can use him as a means to their own ends.
Hence the whole educational system rotates around the idea of ambition; it creates ambitiousness. Ambitiousness is nothing but ego. “Become the first, become the most famous. Become a prime minister or a president. Become world known Leave your name in history.” It does not teach you to live totally, it does not teach you to love totally, it does not teach you to live gracefully, it teaches you how to exploit others for your own purposes. And we think that the people who are clever are the ones who succeed. They are cunning, but we call them clever. They are not intelligent people.
An intelligent person can never use another person as a means; he will respect the other. An intelligent person will be able to see the equality of all. Yes, he will see the differences too, but differences make no difference as far as equality is concerned. He will have tremendous respect for others’ freedom — he cannot exploit them, he cannot reduce them into things, he cannot make them stepping stones to the fulfillment of some absurd desire to be the first. Hence we go on conditioning children, and the question arises…
Your question is relevant, Gautami, because it is not only I who am saying that children are intelligent, it has been said by Buddha, by Lao Tzu, by Jesus, by all the awakened ones. Jesus says: Unless you are like a small child there is no hope for you. Again he says: Unless you become like small children you cannot enter into my kingdom of God. Again and again he repeats one of his most famous beatitudes: Blessed are those who are the last in this world, because they will be the first in my kingdom of God. He is teaching non-ambitiousness — to be the last. He says: Blessed are the meek, for theirs is the kingdom of God — the meek, the humble, the people who are standing last in the queue. It was natural, very natural that the society he was born in was against him because he was destroying the very roots of their ambitiousness.
And Jews have always been very ambitious people, so much so that for centuries, against all hazards, they have carried the idea in their minds that they are the chosen people of God. A thousand and one calamities have happened because of this stupid idea; if they can drop it they will be more acceptable in the world. But they cannot drop it — their whole ego is involved in it. And it is an ancient ego, at least three thousand years old. Since Moses they have been carrying the idea that they are the chosen people of God.
And here comes this man who says, “Be the last”! “We are meant to be the first, and he says, ‘Be humble and meek’! And we are the chosen people; if we are humble and meek then those who are not chosen will become the first!” And Jews are earthly people; they don’t bother much about the other world. They are worldly. “Who knows about the other world? He is saying, ‘If you are the last here you will be the first in my kingdom of God.’ But where is your kingdom of God? It may be just a fiction, just a dream.”
Jesus looks like a dreamer, a poet maybe, but he is destroying their very foundation. They cannot forgive him; they have not even forgiven him yet. They still carry the idea that “we are the chosen people.” They have suffered much for it; the more they have suffered the stronger the idea has become — because if you have to face suffering you have to become more and more egoistic, more rock-like so that you can fight, struggle, so that nobody can destroy you. But they have also become very closed.
Jesus was creating an opening for them; they refused him. He was telling them to come into the open sky. He was telling them to be just ordinary: “Drop this nonsense of being special.” If they had listened to Jesus their whole history would have been different, but they could not listen.
Hindus have not listened to Buddha for the simple reason — the same reason — that Hindus are also carrying the idea they are the holiest people in the world and their land is the holiest land. Even gods long to I e born in India! No other country is so holy. And Buddha said, “This is all nonsense!” They had to reject him. Buddhism was thrown out of this country. No society can tolerate such people, who are telling the truth, because they seem to sabotage the very structure.
But now the time has come when we have suffered enough. All over the world, in different ways, people have suffered much, and it is time to have a look at history and its stupidity and its ridiculousness and drop the whole idea of these egoistic patterns.
Watch small children, Gautami, and then you will not ask me — you will see their intelligence. Yes, they are not knowledgeable. If you want them to be knowledgeable, then you will not think that they are intelligent. If you ask them questions which depend on information, then they will look not intelligent.
But ask them real questions which have nothing to do with information, which need an immediate response, and see — they are far more intelligent than you are. Of course your ego won’t allow you to accept it, but if you can accept it it will help tremendously. It will help you, it will help your children, because if you can see their intelligence you can learn much from them.
A Sufi mystic, Hasan, was dying. When he was dying a man asked him, “Hasan, you have never told us who your Master was. We have asked again and again; you always somehow managed not to answer it. Now you are leaving the world. Please tell us who your Master was. We are very curious.”
Hasan said, “I never answered the question for the simple reason that there has not been just a single Master in my life, I have learned from many people. My first teacher was a small child.”
They were puzzled. They said, “A small child! What are you saying? Have you lost your senses because you are dying? Have you gone mad, crazy?”
He said, “No, listen to the story. I went into a town. Although I had not known the truth up to that time, I was very knowledgeable. I was a scholar. I was well known all over the country; even outside the country my name was spreading. People had started coming to me thinking that I knew it. I was pretending that I knew it, and I was pretending without knowing that I was pretending — I was almost unconscious. Because people believed that I knew they convinced me that I must be right, I must be knowing, otherwise why should so many people be coming to me? I had become a teacher. Without knowing, without experiencing anything of truth, without ever entering into my own inner world, I was talking about great things. I knew all the scriptures; they were on the tip of my tongue.
“But for three days I was moving in a country where nobody knew me and I was very much hankering to find somebody to ask me something so that I could show my knowledge.”
Knowledgeable people become very exhibitionistic; that is their whole joy. If a knowledgeable person has to remain silent he would rather commit suicide. Then what is the point of living in the world? He has to exhibit his knowledge. Only a wise man can be silent. For the wise man to speak is almost a burden; he speaks because he has to speak. The knowledgeable person speaks because he cannot remain silent. There is a vast difference; you may not be able to know it from the outside because both speak. The Buddha speaks, Jesus speaks, and Hasan was also speaking. And they all say beautiful things. Sometimes the knowledgeable people say wiser things than the wise people because the wise persons may speak in contradictions, in paradoxes, but the knowledgeable person is always logical, consistent; he has all the proofs and arguments, he has all the scriptures to support him.
But for three days he had to keep silent. It was almost like fasting, and he was feeling hungry — hungry for an audience, hungry for somebody. But he had not come across anybody who knew him so nobody asked anything.
He entered this town. It was just getting a little dark, the sun had just set. A small child was carrying an earthen lamp, and he asked the child, “My son, can I ask you a question? Where are you taking this earthen lamp?”
And the child said, “I am going to the temple. My mother has told me to put this lamp there because the temple is dark. And this has been my mother’s habit: to always put a lamp there in the night so at least the god of the temple does not have to live in darkness.”
Hasan asked the child, “You seem to be very intelligent. Can you tell me one thing — did you light this lamp yourself?”
The child said, “Yes.”
Then Hasan said, “A third question, the last question I want to ask you: if you lit the lamp yourself, can you tell me where the flame came from? You must have seen it coming from somewhere.”
The child laughed and he said, “I will do one thing — just see!” And he blew the flame out and he said, “The flame has gone just in front of you. Can you tell me where it has gone? You must have seen!”
And Hasan was utterly dumb; he could not answer. The child had shown him that his question, although it looked very relevant, meaningful, was absurd. He bowed down to the child, touched his feet.
He said to the inquirer, “That child was my first Master. That very moment I realized all my metaphysics, all my philosophy was meaningless. I didn’t know a thing on my own. I didn’t even know from where the light comes into a lamp, where it goes to when the light has been put out — and I have been talking about who made the world, how he made the world, when he made the world! For that moment I have always remembered the child. He may have forgotten me, he may not even recognize me, but I cannot forget that incident.
“And since then thousands of people have taught me. I have avoided the question again and again because there is not a single person I can call my Master. Many have been my Masters, I have learned from many sources, and from each source I have learned one thing: that unless you know through your own experience, all knowledge is futile.
“Then I dropped all my learning, all my knowing; all my scriptures I burned. I dropped the idea of being a scholar, I forgot all my fame. I started moving like a beggar, absolutely unknown to anybody. And slowly slowly, going deeper into meditation, I discovered my own intelligence.”
Even though the society destroys your intelligence it cannot destroy it totally; it only covers it with many layers of information. And that’s the whole function of meditation: to take you deeper into yourself. It is a method of digging into your own being to the point when you come to the living waters of your own intelligence, when you discover the springs of your own intelligence. When you have discovered your child again, when you are reborn, then, only then will you understand what I have been meaning by emphasizing again and again that children are really intelligent.
But start watching children, their responses — not their answers but their responses. Don’t ask them foolish questions, ask them something immediate which does not depend on information and see their response.
The mother was preparing little Pedro to go to a party. When she finished combing his hair she straightened his shirt collar and said, “Go now, son. Have a good time… and behave yourself!”
“Come on, mother!” said Pedro. “Please decide before I leave which it is going to be!”
You see the point? The mother was saying, “Have a good time… and behave yourself.” Now, both things cannot be done together. And the child’s response is really of tremendous value. He says, “Please decide before I leave which it is going to be. If you allow me to have a good time, then I cannot behave; if you want me to behave, then I cannot have a good time.” The child can see the contradiction so clearly; it may not have been apparent to the mother.
A passerby asks a boy, “Son, can you please tell me what time it is?”
“Yes, of course,” replies the boy, “but what do you need it for? It changes continuously!”
A new transit sign was put in front of the school. It read: “Drive Slowly. Do Not Kill a Student!”
The following day there was another sign under it scribbled in a childish writing: “Wait for the Teacher!”
Little Pierino comes home from school with a big smile on his face.
“Well, dear, you look very happy. So you like school, do you?”
“Don’t be silly, mom,” replies the boy. “We must not confuse the going with the coming back!”
While slowly walking to school the little boy prays, “Dear God, please do not let me arrive at school late. I pray you, God, let me arrive at school on time…”
At this moment he slips on a banana peel and slides on the path for a few meters. Pulling himself up he looks at the sky annoyed and says, “Okay, okay, God, there is no need to push!”
A little boy is having a test with a psychologist. “What do you want to do when you grow up?” asks the shrink.
“I want to become a doctor or a painter or a window washer!” replies the boy.
Puzzled, the psychologist asks, “But… you aren’t very clear, are you?”
“Why not? I’m very clear. I want to see naked women!”
The father was telling stories to his sons in the living room after dinner. “My great-grandfather fought in the war against Rosas, my uncle fought in the war against the Kaiser, my grandfather fought in the war of Spain against the Republicans and my father fought in the Second World War against the Germans.”
To which the smallest son replied, “Shit! What’s wrong with this family? They can’t relate to anybody!”
Source: Osho Book “Tao: The Golden Gate, Vol 1″

Osho – What do you do when somebody hates you?

http://www.oshoteachings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Osho-on-Hate-and-Inner-Mastery.jpg
Question : What do you do when somebody hates you?
Osho
: WHETHER SOMEBODY HATES YOU OR SOMEBODY LOVES YOU SHOULD NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN YOU. If you are, you remain the same. If you are not, then you are immediately changed. If you are not, then anybody can pull you, push you; then anybody can push your buttons and change you. Then you are a slave, then you are not a master. Your mastery begins when whatsoever happens outside does not change you; your inner climate remains the same.
A psychoanalyst was attending a convention. At one of the lectures one ugly woman sitting next to him began to pinch him. Annoyed, he was about to give her an angry retort, when he changed his mind: “Why should I get angry,” he decided. “After all, it is her problem.”
Whether somebody loves you or hates you, it is his or her problem. If you are, if you have understood your being, you remain in tune with yourself. Nobody can disturb your inner harmony. If somebody loves, good; if somebody hates, good. Both remain somewhere outside you. This is what we call mastery. This is what we call crystallization — becoming free of impressions, influences.
You ask me, “What do you do when somebody hates you?”
What can I do? It is that person’s problem; it has nothing to do with me. If I was not here he would have hated somebody else. He would have hated. If there were nobody and he were alone, he would have hated himself. Hatred is his problem. It has nothing to do with me, not in the least. Basically it does not even refer to me; I am just an excuse. Somebody else would have done as well, would have functioned as an excuse for him.
Have you not watched it? that when you are angry, you are simply angry. It is not that your anger is addressed to somebody. That ‘somebody’ is nothing but an excuse. Angry, you come home from the office; you jump on your wife. Angry, you go from your home; you are angry in the office with the peon, with the clerk, with this and that. If you analyze your states of mind, you will come to see that they belong to you. You live in your own world, but you go on projecting it on others.
When you are angry, YOU are angry — not at me. When you are full of hate, you are full of hate — not at me. When you are full of love, you are full of love — not at me. Once you understand it, you remain like a lotus leaf in the world. You remain in the water but the water does not touch; it touches you not. You remain in the world and yet aloof, not of it. Then nobody can disturb your silence, and nobody can distract you. Your compassion goes on flowing. If you love me, you receive my compassion. If you hate me, you will not receive my compassion — not because I will not give to you. I will be continuously giving to you, as much as I give to those who love me, but you will be closed and you will not receive it.
Once being is attained, one is compassion, unconditional compassion. Not that in some moments he becomes compassionate and some moments he is not compassionate. Compassion then is his natural climate, compassion is his permanent mood, compassion is his integrated being. Then whatsoever you do, his compassion goes on showering on you. But there are moments when you will receive it, when you will be open, and there are moments when you will not receive it because you will be closed.
So in hate you will not receive that, in love you will receive that. And you may even feel the difference — because one who loves me will start growing, one who hates me will start shrinking. Both will become so totally different that you may start thinking that I must be giving more to the one I Love, or one who loves me, and I’m not giving to one who hates me or is angry at me or is closed towards me. But I am not doing that. The clouds are there and they are showering: if your pot is not broken it will be filled. Or even if your pot is not broken, but is upside-down, then you will miss. Hate is a state of upside-downness. Then rains can go on showering but you will remain empty, because your opening is not there. Once you are put rightside-up, that’s what love is. Love is nothing but an opening, a receptivity, a welcome, an invitation, that “I am ready; come, please.”
The Bauls go on singing, “Come Beloved, come.” They go on sending their invitations. Love is inviting, hate is repelling. If you love me you will receive much — not because I am giving you more especially; but if you hate me you will not receive at all — not because I am not giving you, but because you are closed. But I remain myself.
I am not identified with my body, I am not identified with my mind. I have come home. If you are identified with your body and somebody hurts your body, you will be angry; he is hurting YOU. If you are identified with your mind and somebody insults you, you will be angry, because he is hurting your mind. Once you are identified with your being nobody can hurt, because nobody has yet invented any way to hurt being.
The body can be hurt, can be killed. The mind can be hurt…but the being cannot be touched. There is no way to hurt it, there is no way to create pain. It’s VERY nature is blissfulness. You can hurt my body; simple. If I am identified with the body I will be angry because I will think you have hurt me. If you insult me then the hurt goes into the mind. If I am identified with the mind, again you are my enemy. But I am neither identified with the body nor with the mind. I am the witness. So whatsoever you do never reaches to my witnessing center. It goes on witnessing it; it remains utterly unaffected. Once false identifications fall, you are unperturbed. Then you become the center of the cyclone, and storms can go on raging all around you, but deep inside you remain at the still, small center of your being, completely transcendental to whatsoever is happening.
I have heard…. A philosopher, a barber and a bald-headed fool were travelling together. Losing their way they were forced to sleep in the open air, and to avoid danger it was agreed to watch by turns. The first lot fell on the barber, who for amusement shaved the philosopher’s head while he was sleeping. He then awoke him, and the philosopher, raising his hand to scratch his head, exclaimed, “Here is a pretty mistake! You have awakened the old bald-headed fool instead of me.”
Your identification is the BASIC problem. If you are identified with the body, then you are going to remain in constant trouble. Because body is continuously changing, your identity will never be at a point where you can settle and relax. One day the body is young, another day it is old. One day it is healthy, another day it is ill. One day you are so radiant with youth, another day just a dilapidated structure, a ruin. Continuously, body is in a flux.
That’s why people who are identified with the body will remain constantly puzzled, confused, not knowing who they are. You are identifying with something which is not reliable. One day it is born, another day it dies. It is continuously dying and continuously changing. How can you rest with it?
If you are identified with the mind then there will be even more trouble. Because the body at least has a certain structure: it changes, but changes very slowly. You never feel the change. It changes very silently, and it takes years really, to feel a certain change happening. A child does not become a young man overnight, and a young man does not become an old man overnight. It takes years, and very slow is the change; and such minute, minor changes happen that one is never aware. But with the mind you are constantly in turmoil; every single moment there is change. One moment you are happy, another moment you are sad. One moment you were at the top of the world, feeling so fortunate, another moment you are in hell, thinking to commit suicide. How can you identify with the mind?
Being is that which remains always the same, eternally the same. It has no form so it cannot change, and it has no content so it cannot change. The being is contentless, formless. It has no name, no form — what in the East we call NAMARUPA. These two things change: the name and the form. It is neither. It is simple, sheer existence, empty of all content and all form Once you have entered this emptiness nothing can disturb you, because there is nothing to be disturbed. Nothing can hit you, because there is nobody inside to be hit.
Then if you hate me, your arrow will pass through me. It cannot strike because there is nobody. You cannot make a target of me. Whether you love me or hate me, you cannot make a target of me. So it makes no difference. And I don’t do anything, I just remain myself.
One day Mulla Nasrudin was saying to me, “Yes, I used to be in politics myself. I was a dog-catcher in my town for two years, but finally lost the job.”
“What was the matter?” I asked him. “Change of mayors, or something else?”
He said, “No, I finally caught the dog.”
And that’s what I would like to say to you: I finally caught the dog. Now there is no work left for me. I am jobless. I’m not doing anything: all desires have gone, all doing has left. I’m just here. I’m just being to you. If you love, you will receive me with great welcome, and you will be tremendously benefitted. If you hate you will miss, and the responsibility will be yourS. Now it is for you to choose. But I don’t do anything.
Source: Osho Book “The Beloved, Vol 2″

Osho on Women Creativity, Women are in many ways superior to men

Osho on women creativity
Question – Beloved Osho, As women, our natural Creativity is expressed through the bearing and raising of children. What happens to that energy now that that area of expression is no longer viable?
Osho – Energy is always neutral. It has no program in it. It can save or it can mar, it can make or it can destroy. It is a great opportunity that is becoming available to women, now that they are freed from biological bondage. Of course, man has always praised them for their great creativity in having children. But what kind of children have you produced? Just look around the world: these are your children — what creativity!
All the animals are doing it, perhaps better than you. I have been in many jungles and mountains in India. I have never seen any deer which is too fat or too thin; they are all alike. They are not like man: one person is thin and one is so fat and ugly. I have watched all kinds of animals in the wild: nobody teaches them how to produce children.
They don’t have any schools, no maternity homes, no guidance from anybody. So don’t take much pride in the fact that you can produce children. Yes, man has been giving woman much juice about it: “You are a great creator because you give birth to a child.” It was really very tricky of man; it meant that the woman should continue to create children.
And in poor countries it is still happening — to have a dozen children is not rare. Some women have more than one dozen. I saw one woman who had twenty children. Now her whole life is wasted. Either she is pregnant or she is raising the children. And when the child is not even six months old, she is pregnant again. She is doing a double job.
I know about a man who had uniforms for his children. I asked him, “What nonsense this is! Why do you create uniforms for your children?”
He said, “Do you know how many children I have? Fifteen. Without their wearing uniforms I cannot recognize which my child is. So the uniform helps me in two ways. I have to take the children to the school and bring them back home. It helps me to recognize my children and sort them out. It also helps me to know if somebody else’s child has not entered into my fold and my child has gone with somebody else.”
I said, “Now it is time you should stop; fifteen is too much.”
He said, “It is God and his grace. I cannot go against God.” He was a very religious Hindu. “If God wants to give birth to more children, then who am I to prevent it?”
All the religions of the world are against birth control methods, the pill. They are against abortion. It means the woman remains biologically in bondage, and her energies continue to create only mediocre people, crowds to serve in the armies, navies, airforce, to be killed or to kill-at the most to be clerks, nurses, porters. What do you mean by creativity? You have created a porter. Do you feel proud? How much pride can it give to you?
Every parent should feel ashamed. You are creating like animals. Science has given you a chance today to get out of the bondage of biology-a great freedom so that sex becomes, for the first time, not a biological reproductive method; it becomes sheer play, joy.
You are asking me, if women’s energies are not poured into creating children, then what will happen to those energies? Why can’t you start…. There are thousands of ways to make this world more beautiful. Anything that makes the world more beautiful is creative. Landscape the garden around your house. Crossbreed plants; create new flowers that have never existed before. And of course, they will give new fragrances which the earth has never experienced.
And compete with men in every field. Prove to him that you are equal — not by the women’s liberation movement; prove by your actions that you are equal, perhaps superior. The women’s liberation movement is just idiotic. A few women will gather and just create anger and hatred against men, and they will all smoke continuously, and drink.
And they will all become lesbians because they hate men; they cannot love men, they can only love women. It is such a perversion, a woman loving another woman. I cannot conceive the idea of a man loving another man — and not just ordinary people: one of the popes before this pope was a homosexual. He was a bishop in Milan before he became pope.
The whole of Milan knew it, because he was always hanging around with his boyfriend. And when he became pope and went to the Vatican, the boyfriend went there as his secretary. And you know secretaries are just an escape from your wife, a refuge from your wife. If the pope is homosexual — and popes are infallible — it creates great suspicion, because Jesus was also hanging out with twelve boys. It may be something coming down from Jesus himself.
Monks are well-known homosexuals, and nuns are lesbians; but this is out of necessity. The monks have to live together in a monastery; the nuns have to live in a nunnery, separate — they cannot meet. Naturally, their sexuality starts taking some other forms. And I think it is intelligent, it is not unintelligent: if you cannot get the food you like, then you have to like the food you get. This is simple intelligence. In jungles animals are never homosexuals, never. But in zoos they become homosexuals. When I came to know about this, I started being really concerned about humanity: is it a zoo?
This women’s liberation movement has only turned women into lesbians. It has created hate towards men, but this is not going to give you equality. Equality has to be earned, it has to be deserved. So since the pill has released you from the bondage of biology, now you are free to use your energy.
And a woman has a more delicate body, a more flexible body. She can become a better dancer than any man can ever manage. The man, howsoever trained, is stiff. It is not his fault, his physiology is stiff. Women can become the best dancers in the world. A woman has a great imagination, but her imagination has remained confined to the home. The reason was children — children kept her in the home, and for millions of years, so it became almost second nature. Otherwise, I don’t see that there is any natural necessity for woman to confine her imagination within the walls of her home.
The stars belong to her as much as to any man. The sunrise and sunset — they are also her possessions. She has to spread her wings, her consciousness. She has to widen her vision, imagination, dreaming, beyond children. Right now, the woman goes on thinking about the child, “He should become a doctor, he should become an engineer, he should become this and that.”
Now the woman has to become what she used to project through the child. Become a doctor, become an engineer, become a pilot. What you imagined through the child… Why not directly encounter reality, and be yourself what you wanted your child to b
e? I don’t see that there is any problem.
Women are in many ways superior to men, and their superiority can be used for new dimensions of creativity. An experienced mother knows whether there is a boy or a girl in her womb. How does she come to know? Because the boy starts kicking, and the girl never does that. The girl remains more centered, the boy is already freaking out.
And you can see in children — girls will be sitting with their dolls in a corner silently enjoying their game, and boys will be creating all kinds of nuisance all over the neighborhood. What man has created is nothing if the woman comes into the field with her centeredness, with her roundedness, with her contentment, with her love. So move in any direction that feels fulfilling to you.
The day women start creating all kinds of things that men have been creating up to now…. I say to you, there is no need to ask for equality, because women are the superior sex — naturally, because nature has made the woman to create children. Man’s function in creating children is negligible. Any syringe can do what he is doing, just a plastic syringe, use it and throw it out.
Women are more resistant to diseases. From the very beginning, nature has an immense balancing power. If one hundred girls are born, then one hundred and fifteen boys are born, because by the time they reach marriageable age, fifteen boys will have disappeared. They are weaker — any sickness, any disease…. But those hundred girls will be there, so by the marriageable age the balance is equal; those fifteen extras are gone.
If nature were producing exactly the same number of girls and boys, there would be great difficulty. Soon the population of women would have gone far beyond the population of men. But nature has its own ways of balancing. Knowing that man has a much weaker body, in the sense that it cannot resist and fight with sickness, it creates fifteen extras.
The woman lives longer than the man — five years longer — in every country, in every race. And the woman suffers much, but still she survives. Man cannot survive as much suffering as woman manages to. So don’t be worried about your energies. You have more energy than men.
Man started suppressing women only because he felt inferior. His inferiority complex was the cause of his forcing women to become inferior, so he could cover up his wound and feel superior. It is stupid. And now because biology no longer has power over women, don’t waste your energy in being a lesbian. This is the time for you to be creative in every field, and you will be able to have your Picassos, your Mozarts, your Van Goghs, your Shakespeares.
There is no reason why not. Perhaps a little better, a little softer, and your sculpture is certainly going to be more alive. There is only one thing in which you will not find yourself equal to men — and please remember, don’t try to be equal in that area — that is muscles. Let men be superior as far as muscles are concerned, because if women start going to gymnasiums and creating muscular bodies, that will be the worst day in the history of humanity.
Just closing my eyes… if I see thousands of muscular women sitting here I am not going to come again! And there is a tendency to imitate. You know that man has imitated you; otherwise, what is the need to shave his beard and his mustache? It seems as though he wants to look as beautiful as a woman, but he forgets completely that to a woman, a man looks more beautiful with a beautiful beard and mustache. He is thinking from a man’s side, that a woman looks beautiful. Just think of it the other way: if a woman grows a beard and a mustache — do you think she is going to find a man to chase her?
But that’s what man has done, imitate. A simple argument, but without understanding. He feels that the woman is beautiful, and as it is so easy to remove the mustache and the beard, why not be as beautiful as the woman? He forgets the fact that for the woman you are losing much attraction.
Just look at my beard! I don’t think any of my sannyasins would like my beard to be shaved. Perhaps many of my women sannyasins are here just because of my gray beard. And anyway, whether I am saved spiritually or not, I am not going to shave my beard!

Osho on reasons for Men Insensitivity, Osho on Insensitive Men

Osho on Insensitive Men
Question : What are the reasons for man’s insensitivities and how to remove them?
Osho : When the child is born the child is helpless. The human child, particularly, is totally helpless. He has to depend on others to be alive, to remain alive. This dependence is a bargain. The child has to give many things in this bargain, and sensitivity is one. The child is sensitive; his whole body is sensitive. But he is helpless, he cannot be independent; he has to depend on parents, on family, on society; he will have to be dependent.
Because of this dependence and helplessness, the parents, the society, go on forcing things on the child, and he has to yield. Otherwise he cannot remain alive, he will die. So he has to give many things in this bargain. The first very deep and significant thing is sensitivity: he has to leave it. Why? Because the more the child is sensitive, the more he is in trouble, the more he is vulnerable. A slight sensation, and he begins to cry.
The cry has to be stopped by the parents, and they cannot do anything. But if the child goes on feeling every detail of sensation, the child will become a nuisance. And children do become nuisances, so parents have to curtail their sensitivity. The child has to learn resistance, the child has to learn control. And by and by the child has to divide his mind into two. So there are many sensations which he just stops feeling because they are not ”good” – he is punished for them.
The child’s whole body is erotic. He can enjoy his fingers, he can enjoy his body; the whole body is erotic. He goes on exploring his own body; it is a great phenomenon for him. But the moment comes in his exploration when the child gets to the genitalia. Then it becomes a problem because the father and mother are all repressed. The moment the child, boy or girl, touches the genitalia, the parents become uneasy. This is to be observed deeply.
Their behavior suddenly changes, and the child notes it. Something wrong has happened. They start crying, ”Don’t touch!” Then the child starts feeling that something is wrong with the genitalia, he has to suppress. And the genitals are the most sensitive part of your body – the most sensitive, the most alive part of your body, the most delicate. Once the genitalia are not allowed to be touched and enjoyed, you have killed the very source of sensitivity.
Then the child will become insensitive. The more he will grow, the more he will be insensitive. So first there is a bargain – necessary, but evil. And the moment one begins to understand, this bargain has to be thrown and you have to regain your sensitivity. The second reason for this bargain is because of security.
I was with a friend for many years; I lived in his bungalow. From the very first day I observed that he would not look at his servants. He was a rich man, but he would never look at his servants, he would never look at his children. He would come running into the bungalow, then he would go running from his bungalow to his car. So I asked him, ”What is the matter?”
He said, ”If you look at your servants they start feeling friendly, and then they start asking about money and this and that. If you talk with your children, then you are not the master, then you cannot control them.” So he created a facade of insensitivity around himself. He was afraid that if he talked with a servant, if he should feel that the servant was ill, if he sympathized, then he would have to give some money or some help.
Everyone learns sooner or later that to be sensitive is to be vulnerable to many things. You pull yourself in, you create a barrier around yourself that is a safeguard – a safety measure. Then you can go on through the streets… beggars are begging and there are dirty, ugly slums, but you do not feel anything, you do not really see. In this ugly society one has to create a barrier around himself, a wall – a subtle, transparent wall – behind which he can hide.
Otherwise, one is vulnerable, and it will be very difficult to live. That is why insensitivity sets in. It helps you to be in this ugly world without being disturbed; but there is a cost – and the cost is very much. You are at ease in this world without being disturbed, but then you cannot enter into the divine, into the total, into the whole. You cannot enter the other world.
If for this world insensitivity is good and for that world sensitivity is good, that creates the problem. If you are really interested in entering that world, you will have to create sensitivity, you will have to throw away all these walls, these securities. Of course, you will become vulnerable. You will feel much suffering, but that suffering is nothing in comparison to the bliss you can reach through sensitivity. The more sensitive you become, the more you will feel compassion. But you will suffer because all around you there is hell.
You are closed – that is why you cannot feel it. Once you become open, you will be open to both – to the hell of this world and the heaven of that world. You will become open to both. And it is impossible to remain closed at one point and open at another, because really, either you are closed or you are open. If you are closed, you are closed for both. If you are open, you will be open for both. So remember this: a buddha is filled with bliss, but also filled with suffering.
That suffering is not of his own, it is for others. He is in deep bliss, but he suffers for others. And Mahayana Buddhists say that when Buddha reached to the door of nirvana, the gatekeeper opened the door – this is a myth, and very beautiful – the doorkeeper opened the door, but Buddha refused to enter. The doorkeeper said, ”Why are you not coming in? For millennia we have been waiting for you. Every day the news comes that ‘Buddha is coming, Buddha is coming!’ The whole of heaven is waiting for you. Enter! You are welcome!”
Buddha said, ”I cannot enter unless everyone else has entered before me. I will wait! Unless every single human being has entered, heaven is not for me.”
Buddha has a suffering for others. As for himself, he is now deep in bliss. See the parallel? You are deep in suffering, and you go on feeling that everyone else is enjoying life. Quite the contrary happens to a Buddha. He is now in deep bliss, and he knows that everyone else is suffering. These methods are the methods to remove this insensitivity. We will discuss more about HOW to remove it. Enough.

Osho – My communes are run by women, and they have proved far superior to men in every possible way

Osho on communes run by women
Question – It seems the Whole Commune is run by Women. Is there a particular purpose or strategy to that?
Osho – Certainly there is a particular strategy. Man has dominated women for centuries and forced the idea on them that they are the weaker sex, that they cannot do anything that man can do. They can do small homely things — that is their world. I want to destroy that idea completely. And you can see I have destroyed it.
My communes are run by women, and they have proved far superior to men in every possible way. My sannyasins are doing better business than any man can do, finding better bargains than any man can find. I wanted it to be a solid argument before the whole of humanity that women are not inferior, that if you give them a chance, they can even prove superior in many matters. At least they are going to prove equal.
And this is a strange way: to keep half of humanity in a downtrodden state. How much is the loss? — half of humanity means that women, if they were accepted equally, would have produced a Dostoevsky, a Turgenev, a Chekhov, a Gorky, a van Gogh, a Picasso, a Nijinsky. They may have proved a Buddha, a Jesus…. Half of humanity! — it is a vast ocean to whom you have denied all possibilities of creation, expression. And you have behaved with women as if they are cattle, not human beings.
It is not going to be so in my commune. But I do not agree with the liberation movement of women, because that is going in a reactionary way, creating hate for men — so much so that their basic approach is now that no woman should love any man, that they should all be lesbians.
Here, women are running the whole commune, everything, but no man who is here has ever felt that he is inferior. In fact, for the first time he feels a respect for women. He can see the dignity of women. Every day I receive letters from my male sannyasins asking, “What is happening? The commune sannyasins, the women, are becoming juicier and juicier, more and more graceful, more and more beautiful. And they are working so hard!”
For the first time, they have been given the chance to show their mettle. It is not a loss to men: they have found a companion, equal to themselves, side by side with them. You were missing half of humanity…. And remember, because you have repressed that half, that half was trying to take revenge in every possible way. Of course, the woman has her own ways of taking revenge, and every man knows how the woman can take revenge. Every woman has been taking it for centuries. She will be nagging the husband, she will be spying on the husband. She will make the husband just a henpecked person.
All husbands are henpecked! I have never come across another category. Outside they may roar like lions, but that is not to be believed. Just look through the keyhole in their houses — the woman is roaring and the husband is hiding like a rat behind this chair, behind that table. It is natural, because if you repress their energy, somehow they are going to revolt against it. Here, men also are feeling tremendously relieved because no woman is nagging them.
Women’s liberation is automatically men’s liberation. Women’s slavery is automatically men’s slavery. They go together. But this is only a transitory period…. Once I have proved my point, all around the world in different countries and different communes — even where I am not present — women will be on the top, once the point is proved and people can see.
Just four years ago, when we came here, we did not have a single dollar. My women sannyasins managed to purchase 126 square miles, an area three times bigger than New York. In four years we have poured almost two hundred million dollars into creating this oasis, and all has been managed by women. They have proved their mettle — and without insulting men, without putting them down, without in any way taking revenge. And they are not lesbians.
So it is, in fact, a tremendous revolution which is needed, which has been needed for centuries. And the sooner the whole world goes the way my communes function, the better, because I don’t think women will be ready to use nuclear weapons in the third world war. Women won’t want to kill; that is not part of their feminine psychology. They would like people to come closer, to be more loving.
If the world is run by women — and man can take his place more significantly in scientific research, in the service of life and creativity — and the governments and all other functional things are run by women, we will have a tremendous balance.
It will take a little time for women to produce Einstein and Picasso and Michelangelo. It will take a little time to bring a Mozart, a Leonardo da Vinci, because for thousands of years — in fact, for the whole history — they have been repressed, so it will need a little time. And once the repression changes into expression, it will be just like land which has been lying fallow for thousands of years gathering all kinds of fertilizers, rain water, and nobody cultivating it. When you cultivate it, it is going to give you a bumper crop. All other fields will look poor because they have been exploited every year; they have lost their energy to produce more.
The same is the situation of the human mind. The feminine mind has not been used, has not been allowed to function. If it is allowed, it may take a quantum leap. And it will be a blessing for all.
An intelligent woman, respected as equal to men in the society, will not become a lesbian because it is unnatural, absolutely unnatural. She will be heterosexual. And if all women turn to heterosexuality, we will be declaring war on homosexuality, too, because from where are they going to find men? They will chase the homosexuals to their deaths. They are chasing them here.
We have got a few homosexuals, and they go on writing letters of complaint to me: “We are homosexuals and women are chasing us. We are not interested, but we do not want even to declare that we are homosexual.”
I say, “What can I do? Drop your homosexuality.”
We can make a better world together. Men and women should be really half-and-half of a whole. There are qualities which men have and women do not have; there are qualities which women have and men do not have. Both together, the human being will be richer in every possible way.
Just think of a woman pilot dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I cannot conceive of it. If there had been a woman pilot, she would have refused to follow the order. She would have preferred to be shot dead, but she would not go to kill innocent people who have nothing to do with war.
And anyway, the war was ending. Germany was already on its knees, it was only a question of a week or two until Japan would surrender. There was no need of an atom bomb to create a hell for two beautiful cities.
I don’t think a woman could have done that. A woman would rather have said, “You can court-martial me. You can shoot me. That seems to be easier than killing 100,000 people in one city, and 120,000 people in another city.”
But what did the man pilot do? He dropped atom bombs on both the cities, came back to his base, had a good dinner, smoked the best cigar, joked with his friends, and went to sleep with a woman. In the morning when the journalists reached him, they asked the man if it had been very difficult for him to sleep having caused 220,000 people’s deaths.
He said, “No, I slept beautifully. I did my duty, and once the duty was fulfilled — and it was a great duty to be fulfilled — I was feeling so happy that I managed to do it that I went to sleep with a woman and had a beautiful sleep.”
Because it had been his orders, President Truman was asked early in the morning the next day, “How was your night?” He said, “I felt immensely relieved. Now there is no question of the war being prolonged any more. Not only that, we have made a point to the whole world: Don’t come in conflict with America, otherwise the result will be more Hiroshimas, more Nagasakis” — not a single word of sympathy for those innocent people. They were civilians, they were not in military camps.
I have seen a picture that I cannot forget. One friend from Japan sent me a photograph of a small child, maybe eight or nine years old. His bag hanging on his shoulder, his books in the bag, he was going upstairs into the attic which was allotted to him as his place to study and sleep. And just when he was on the middle of the staircase, the atom bomb fell on Hiroshima.
The boy simply got burned and got stuck into the wall — just a burned body with a burned bag, burned books. When I saw that picture, I could not believe that man can do this to man. If a woman was president of America, I don’t think this could have happened. Man has been given enough chance; now let the woman come up, and man can pour his energies more into scientific fields. Meanwhile, women will pick things up.
Yes, there is a certain basic strategy why my communes are run by women. But you can meet my male sannyasins. They are not in any way thought to be inferior. No woman is treating them as inferior in the way they have always treated women as inferior.
Perhaps it is that the male ego functions in that way: unless it makes somebody feel inferior, it is not satisfied. The woman functions in a different way: unless she feels somebody needing her, desiring her, she feels frustrated. A man’s need seems to be to dominate, and the woman’s need seems to be to be needed. That is a far better need — to be needed.
And I am doing an experiment, I am not a philosopher. I hate philosophy because it is simply a wastage of time. My commune is my experiment, and everything that I have envisioned has come true in it. The same can happen all over the world. This is a prototype.
Source – Osho Book “The Last Testament, Vol 1″

Osho on Woman – Real liberation will make the woman authentically a woman

Osho on Contemporary Woman
Question – What do you see as the greatest need of Contemporary Woman?
Osho
– Because the woman has been dominated for centuries, religion has disappeared from the earth. If religion comes back, the woman will again gain respect. And because the woman has been dominated, tortured and reduced to a nonentity, she has become ugly. Whenever your nature is not allowed to go according to its inner needs it turns sour, it becomes poisoned; it becomes crippled, paralyzed — it becomes perverted.
The woman that you find in the world is not a true woman either, because she has been corrupted for centuries. And when the woman is corrupted, man cannot remain natural either, because after all, the woman gives birth to the man. If she is not natural, her children will not be natural. If she is not natural — she is going to mother the child, male or female — those children naturally will be affected by the mother.
Woman certainly needs a great liberation, but what is happening in the name of liberation is stupid. It is imitation, it is not liberation. Here there are many women who have been in the Liberation movement, and when for the first time they come here they are very aggressive. And I can understand their aggression: centuries and centuries of domination have made them violent. It is a simple revenge. They have become insane, and nobody is responsible except man. But slowly slowly, they soften, they become graceful; their aggressiveness disappears.
They become, for the first time, feminine. Real liberation will make the woman authentically a woman, not an imitation of man. Right now that’s what is happening: women are trying to be just like men. If men smoke cigarettes then the woman has to smoke cigarettes. If they wear pants then the woman has to wear pants. If they do a certain thing then the woman has to do that. She is just becoming a second-rate man.
This is not liberation, this is a far deeper slavery — far deeper because the first slavery was imposed by men; this second slavery is deeper because it is created by the women themselves. And when somebody else imposes a slavery on you, you can rebel against it, but if you impose a slavery on yourself in the name of liberation, there is no possibility of rebellion ever. I would like the woman to become really a woman, because much depends on her.
She is far more important than man because she carries in her womb both the woman and the man, and she mothers both, the boy and the girl; she nourishes both. If she is poisoned then her milk is poisoned, then her ways of bringing up children are poisoned. If the woman is not free to be really a woman, man will never be free to be really a man either. The freedom of woman is a must for the freedom of man; it is more fundamental than man’s freedom.
And if the woman is a slave — as she has been for centuries — she will make a slave of man too, in very subtle ways; her ways are subtle. She will not fight with you directly; her fight will be indirect, it will be feminine. She will cry and weep. She will not hit you, she will hit herself, and through hitting herself, through crying and weeping, through using these Gandhian methods, she will dominate you.
Even the strongest man becomes henpecked. A very thin, weak woman can dominate a very strong man simply by using Gandhian methods. Gandhi is not the inventor of those methods; they have been used for centuries by women He simply rediscovered them and used them politically.
The woman has been using them for centuries, but only in a family context. The woman needs total freedom so that she can give freedom to man too. This is one of the fundamentals to be remembered: if you make somebody a slave you will be reduced to slavery ultimately, finally; you can’t remain free. If you want to remain free, give freedom to others; that’s the only way to be free.

Osho – The women of India are living in utter slavery; their slavery is double

Osho on Women and Slavery
Question – Osho, How can india be free when her women are not?
Osho – R. K. Karanjia, India is suffering from a very ugly and rotten past, and the problem is that Indians go on praising their past as golden. The whole world, except India, believes in evolution; India believes in Involution.
Now it is an absolutely accepted fact of science that man is evolving, becoming more and more mature, but India still lives under the illusion that the highest has already happened; now we are falling, deteriorating. The modern man, according to Indian ideology, is the worst. The farther back you go in the past the higher the quality of humanity you will find this is putting things absolutely upside-down, this is not so, and unless this whole idea is shattered, destroyed, burnt, India cannot be really free.
The very idea is depressing; one loses all zest for living. If it is only that we are going downhill every moment, then how can there be hope and how can there be joy? Then life can only be a boredom, a drag; it cannot be a dance and a celebration.
Hence India lives under a very great burden; that burden creates its spiritual slavery, and out of that burden many more things arise – one thing leads to another. The past of India is full of pseudo religion and the pseudo religion imprisonments for man. It gives you masks, it creates the hypocrite, it does not help you to discover your original face.
One can be politically free easily, but unless one is spiritually free one will not be able to use that political freedom at all for right purposes. It will only create chaos, anarchy; it will be destructive, not creative. So the political freedom has not proved a blessing to India for the simple reason that the inner soul is still living within walls, chained. But the problem is the Indian mind respects those chains, worships those chains. It does not think of the prison as a prison but as a temple. The moment you start thinking and believing that your chains are ornaments and very valuable, you start protecting them. Rather than throwing them away you cling to them.
India clings to its past, and that clinging is not allowing it to release the splendours of its soul. The women of India are living in utter slavery; their slavery is double. The men are slaves, but the women are the slaves of these slaves. And why are the women living in such slavery? If you go to the roots again you will find that the pseudo religion is its cause.
From Manu up to today the woman has been condemned for the simple reason that all these socalled saints and mahatmas were living with repressed sexuality, and when you live with repressed sexuality the woman becomes immensely important. Then your whole mind is full of fantasies about women, and naturally one starts feeling that the woman is the cause of all these fantasies. You cannot get them out of your mind because those fantasies are very alluring, fascinating, but the reason is not the woman at all. Repress your desire for food and your mind will be full of food. Repress any desire and the repressed desire will take revenge; it is bound to happen so. It will assert itself in a thousand and one ways. If you prevent it at the front door it will start coming in through the back door.
India has lived with a repressive morality; its morality is not authentic, not true, not sincere. It is not centred in a self-realized consciousness, it is just cultivated, painted on the outside. It is a painted face! And you know it – everybody who lives with the mask knows it – that the real face is the total opposite of it. The real face is repressed and the unreal one is praised, decorated, worshipped. This creates a deep split, this creates schizophrenia.
Indian culture is schizophrenic, it is insane, but beautifully rationalized, beautifully covered. And the greatest problem, the greatest taboo in India has been sex. Just as in the West today the taboo is death, in India it has been sex. These two things have to be understood because these are the two fundamental taboos. Either a society creates a taboo around sex or it moves to the other extreme and creates a taboo around death. Both are deeply related – two extremes of the same phenomenon.
Sex is birth, sex is the beginning, and death is the end. A few people are trying to hide the fact of birth and a few other people are trying to hide the fact of death. The culture which makes sex a taboo will accept death, and vice versa: the culture that creates a taboo about death will accept sex. Humanity needs freedom from all taboos, freedom from all extremist ideologies, because to be an extremist is to be insane. The sane person is balanced: he is exactly in the middle, he follows the golden mean. And to be in the middle is to transcend duality, is to transcend the extreme polarity.
Man needs a new kind of understanding which accepts both birth and death as part of life, with no fear. The moment you accept both, the moment you can celebrate both, you go beyond both. If you create a taboo around the energy called sex then the woman is condemned. The condemnation of the woman, the slavery of the woman, is simply a condemnation of sex.
Reduced to its scientific roots you can easily see it: unless sex is respected the woman will remain a means either to be exploited, manipulated, possessed like a thing, or renounced – again like a thing. Either you possess the woman – then she is your property – or you renounce the woman, but again it is the same thing: she is your property. And woman considered as property cannot have freedom. India considers the woman as property. The worldly use her and the other-worldly, the so-called mahatmas, renounce her, but both agree on one point: that she is your property. She has no soul, so where is the question of giving her freedom?
One of the most respected incarnations of God in India is Rama. His wife, Sita, was stolen by Ravana. After years of fight and struggle Rama defeated Ravana, brought his wife back, but first she had to pass through an utterly inhuman examination. The examination is called AGNI PARIKSHA, ’fire examination’; she had to pass through fire. If she was absolutely free of any sin while she was away from Rama, even in her dreams, then she would come out of the fire unharmed, if she had sinned, even in her mind, then she would be consumed by the fire.
Now, this is sheer stupidity. Fire does not believe in your morality! Fire has no respect for any culture, any religion, any values. Fire has its own laws; it cannot suspend those laws But one thing more has to be noted: only Sita had to pass through the fire, not Rama. And there is a greater possibility… He was also away from his wife – what had he been doing? But he was beyond question. He was a man, and this is a man-dominated society. And he was really a male chauvinist pig!
Sita passed through the fire and, the story goes, she survived. And back home, when they reached their capital just a single man objected, but not to Rama himself. That man’s wife had not come home one night and when she came back in the morning he simply said, ’I will not accept you. I am not Rama! Get lost! I am finished with you!’
This was reported to Rama and he simply threw the pregnant Sita into the forest. She was not even given a chance to say something – she was not even asked! She was not even told what was happening to her. Who asks one’s own property? If you want to dispose of your furniture you dispose of it. If you want to burn it, you burn it. If you want to sell it, you sell it. And still Rama is worshipped as God by Hindus, he is thought to be one of the greatest incarnations. People seem to be utterly blind! Even women go on worshipping Rama! At least they should start burning his effigies, they should start throwing his statues out of the temples, because no man has done so much harm to women as this man has done.
Another Hindu, Yudishthira – he is called Dharmaraj, ’the king of religion’… He was a gambler, and not only did he gamble away his whole kingdom, he gambled away his wife too. He staked his wife and lost her in the gamble. A woman is just a possession! You can gamble away your house, your king-dom, you can gamble away your wife! And still he is called the king of religion, one of the most respected persons – a great saint. Nobody raises the question of what he did with Draupadi, his wife. Was it human? Even a very barbaric person would think twice before doing it. Even a criminal would not dare to do it. And still he remains one of the most respected persons in the history of India.
Not only did he stake her and lose her in the gamble, but Draupadi was divided by five brothers. He had four brothers and they all wanted Draupadi – she was so beautiful. They were all interested in getting her, so the only solution was that they divide her; she would be the wife of all five. So the time during a week was divided – how many hours she would be a wife to one brother and how many hours a wife to another brother. A possession can be divided! And she was not even asked.
This is ugly! This is subhuman! This is animal! And this is India’s past. Indian saints have been telling the whole world that the woman is the door to hell. And of course, if woman is the door to hell she cannot have freedom, she cannot be allowed to have any say in life. Either possess her, dominate her, reduce her to a commodity, or renounce her; that is again the same. Possessing or renouncing, the woman remains a commodity.
This whole structure has to be shattered; only then can the woman, Indian woman, be free. The Indian mahatmas go on condemning the woman as nothing but blood, bones, pus, dirt. And it is very strange – they never think that they were born out of the woman, they had lived in the womb of the woman, and they are also made in the same way: bones, blood, pus. They are not made of gold or silver or diamonds! All Indian scriptures condemn woman as ugly, as rotten… and man? They don’t talk about man at all. Strange logic! A double bind, a double standard.
Mrs Kohansky went to her butcher of many years and said, ’Bernie, today I need a beautiful chicken, maybe four pounds.’
Bernie pointed out three chickens in the display counter, but Mrs Kohansky turned up her nose at all of them. ’I asked for a beautiful chicken!’ she sniffed.
So Bernie went to the back of the store, and from his refrigerator room he extracted an especially plump fowl. He brought it forward with pride. The lady was cautious. She took the chicken and slowly began to examine each part with her fingers – lifting the wings, feeling the breast and groping inside the cavity. Finally the butcher’s patience waned. ’Tell me, Mrs Kohansky,’ he demanded, ’do you think you could pass such a test?’
But there are different criterions for men and women. These different criterions have to be absolutely destroyed, only then can the woman be free; otherwise she cannot be free. And without the woman being free, the country remains basically unfree. The woman constitutes fifty percent of the population, but she is more important than just fifty percent because all the children will be raised by the woman. If she is a slave she will create the slave mentality, unconsciously, in her children’s minds. The girls and the boys – everybody is raised by the woman; they will be conditioned as slaves. The woman can only give them what she has. So it is not that only fifty percent will remain in slavery, it will amount to almost ninety-nine per-cent. It will be a rare individual in India who is truly free!
The first thing is the ugly, pseudo religion, the phony morality. For thousands of years, even today, the phenome-non of sati has been happening. Sati means a woman throwing herself into the funeral pyre with her dead husband. There is every possibility that the idea came from Egypt to India. In fact, geologists say that in the remote past Africa and India were one continent. India fits the African continent exactly – if you cut out the maps of both and bring them close, you will be surprised. And South India still carries negroid blood. North India is Aryan, South India is African, it is negroid. It is possible that in the remote past both comments were one, that India was joined with Egypt. And now it is a well-established scientific fact that continents drift, they move. They are still drifting; they go on changing their Locations very slowly.
In India all the North Indian languages were born out of Sanskrit, but not the South Indian languages. They are not of Sanskrit origin; their origin is completely lost. In Egypt this was the idea: that when the king dies all his wives have to be buried with him, because till the Last Judgement Day he will have to live in the grave and he cannot live without servants and wives and all kinds of luxuries. So with him all the luxuries were buried, treasures were buried, slaves were buried and women were buried – they were not more than slaves.
The same idea has prevailed for at least five thousand years in India: the woman has to throw herself into the fire. And of course it is a difficult task. Just put your hand into fire and you will know. Just the flame of a candle touching your finger will show you what it means to jump into a funeral pyre alive! So it was not done willingly – the woman was really thrown into the funeral pyre.
And the arrangements were made in such a way that no-body would be able to see. Much purified butter was thrown in before; it created so much smoke. And the brahmins, the priests, were standing all around with burning torches, and then the woman was brought. And such a great noise was created with drums and the chanting of mantras and the shouting of slogans that the cry of the woman would not be heard. Sometimes she tried to escape from the funeral pyre and those burning torches were there to push her back into the funeral pyre. It was pure murder, ugly murder, very barbaric!
And then the woman was worshipped. This still goes on happening even now although it is illegal. But the worship is not illegal. This is a strange thing! If a woman jumps into the funeral pyre or is forced to jump, that is illegal – it still happens! – but once a woman is burnt, has become a sati, then a temple is raised and then she is worshipped. If burning oneself in fire is illegal then all these worshippers should be imprisoned immediately, thrown into gaols, punished, because they are encouraging something illegal! But no steps are taken against them.
Why has no man ever burnt himself with his wife? The Indian scriptures say that love is so great, it is because of the greatness of love that women have been throwing themselves in with their dead husbands. I can agree it may be because of great love, but then why has no man…? In thousands of years not a single man has thrown himself into the funeral pyre of his wife. Does it mean that no man has ever loved, that only women love? This is a strange thing! And the mahatmas and the saints are absolutely silent about that. There is a double standard about everything.
The woman in India has not been allowed to read the Vedas the Upanishads, for the simple reason that she is ’impure’. Why is a woman impure? And if she is impure, then how can a man be pure? He is born out of the woman! But the woman is not allowed to become a priestess because if she becomes a priestess then these double standards cannot be continued any-more. She has not to be educated, she has not to be allowed to read the scriptures – that is man’s domain, his privilege, his prerogative.
The woman has to be kept in ignorance because if she is ignorant she will remain obedient. If she becomes as know-ledgeable as the priests then it will be difficult to dominate her, it will be difficult to argue with her, it will be difficult to force her into slavery. And this is not only true about the so-called, the pseudo mahatmas, the phony ones, even great people like Mahavira, Buddha and others could not go against the tradition; they compromised. These are the few points I cannot agree on even with Buddha and Mahavira.
Mahavira said that no woman can attain to liberation unless she is first born as a man. All that she can attain through medi-tation, austerities, yoga, is a new birth in the body of a man, and then she can attain to the ultimate truth. But no woman can go directly from the body of a woman to the ultimate liberation. And these people have been saying that man is not the body. You can see the contradiction, the inconsistency, the utter nonsense of the whole thing, the ridiculousness! Man is not body, man is consciousness. And woman? Woman is a body,she is not consciousness!Or do you think consciousness is also male and female?It is such a simple thing!
If you are silently watching yourself, that watching, that witnessing cannot be male or female. Witnessing is simply wit-nessing; it has nothing to do with sex, it has nothing to do with gender. And freedom, the ultimate freedom, truth, liberation, nirvana, God, is attained through witnessing. If God is attained through witnessing, then why can a woman not attain? Just because she is in a female body? And what is wrong with being in a female body? And what is special about being a man? There seems to be nothing special: maybe a little difference in hormones, in a few glands.
But to say that the woman cannot attain to nirvana, to moksha, to ultimate liberation, means you are making your liberation dependent on hormones and glands. So your liberation has nothing to do with religion but with chemistry, biochemistry, biology, physiology! Mahavira says no woman can attain to liberation directly. He is simply compromising with the traditional view. He is not courageous enough, although his name is Mahavira. Mahavira means ’the great courageous man’, but he is only ninety-nine percent courageous; one percent of cowardliness is there, absolutely present – he is compromising.
Even Buddha for years denied initiation to women in his commune. The fear of the society condemning him! The fear of the repressed monks, because if women were there then the repressions might start surfacing. I may be the first person who has accepted women totally. equally. Even Buddha and Mahavira are very reluctant.
Buddha finally initiated women into sannyas – because his own stepmother insisted and he had owed much to the stepmother… His own mother died immediately after giving birth to him; he was brought up by the stepmother And she had loved him so much that he could not say no to her, he had to agree. But once one woman was initiated then the door was opened, then other women insisted that they had to be initiated too and he had to agree, he could not be partial. But he must have said it in deep sadness.
He said, ’My religion was going to exist on the earth in its purest form for five thousand years, but now it will only exist for five hundred years. The women will destroy it.’ This is a very condemnatory note from Buddha – I cannot accept it. This shows his fear. This shows that he was in some way or other agreeing with the rotten tradition that has been always condemnatory of women. He rebelled against many things, but he could not rebel against one of the most fundamental things that has to be destroyed.
Indians are so much against me for the simple reason that what Mahavira has not done, Buddha has not done, I am trying to do. Naturally they are offended, and they have found great arguments – rationalizations I will call them, not really arguments… They say a soul is born as a woman because of past sins. How do you decide it? And who is the judge? The males are de-ciding it – and of course they decide in their own favour. They are born as men because they have done great virtuous deeds in the past and the woman is born as a woman because she has sinned in past lives. This is a punishment and she has to suffer it. This is consoling the woman, giving her a rationalization. A very tricky political game!
It was the first year that the family had been living in Germany, and the father wanted his little boy to shine at his studies. Mr Stein asked for Max’s report card.
Reluctantly, Max showed it. Mr Stein was angry and scolded the boy for his poor grades.
’Well, Papa,’ said Max, ’the other boys in my class are Nazis. They know I’m Jewish and they bother me so that I can’t study. That’s why I got such a bad report card.’
Mr Stein relented. ’All right, my son,’ he said. ’Anything for your future. I’m converting you into a Nazi, then you won’t have any more trouble.’
So Max had no more trouble in his class, but at the end of the next term he came home with another terrible report. Mr Stein was furious.
’What’s your excuse now?’ he yelled.
Well,’ Max said, ’you know, Papa, we Nazis don’t learn as fast as those Jewish boys!’
One can always find excuses, rationalizations, but they are all inventions – the inventions of cunning people.
An old Chinese man is walking down the road when he comes across a small Chinese boy who is cutting his nails. ’Little boy,’ says the old man, ’stop cutting your nails!’
The small boy looks up at him and then carries on cutting his nails.
’Little boy,’ repeats the old man, ’I say, you stop cutting your nails!’
Again the boy looks up at him and then continues cutting his nails.
’Little boy,’ exclaims the old man, ’why when I have told you to stop cutting your nails do you carry on?’
’Because my neighbours beat their child,’ replies the boy.
’But what has that got to do with you cutting your nails?’ asked the old man.
’What has cutting my nails got to do with you?’
No real reason is there, but if you repeat a certain thing for thousands of years people become conditioned to it, they start thinking that it really is a reason. A rationalization can appear as a reason if repeated too often, and India is very repetitive: it has been repeating the same nonsense for thousands of years.
So every Indian mind is full of bullshit… or you can call it ’holy cowdung’! That will look far more Indian and far more religious too! Holy cowdung is sacred and if your head is full of it you are bound to go to heaven because holy cowdung is the only thing in the world that defies gravity. It will take you up and up and up until you reach heaven!
This male-chauvinistic country has lived in many kinds of slaveries, slaveries within slaveries. For twenty-two centuries India has been in slavery, political slavery. A country can live in slavery for twenty-two centuries only if somewhere deep down it is spiritually ready to accept slavery. Unless somewhere deep down there is a desire to remain a slave, nobody can keep anyone for two thousand years and more in slavery, that is impossible. But if spiritually you are a slave then politically, economically, socially, you will also be a slave.
The Indian woman has to be freed from her chains. Her freedom will help India to be really free. If the woman remains unfree, India’s freedom will remain just superficial – some-thing borrowed, something imported, not grown within it’s own soul. R. K. Karanjia, it is true that India cannot be free when her women are not, but the women can be free. It needs guts to issue the challenge. It needs courage to create a revolution in the minds of women and men.
That’s exactly what I am doing through sannyas: making an effort to destroy the spiritual slavery of the Indian soul. The whole past is heavy, a Himalayan weight, but it can be drop-ped. Once you become conscious of it there is no problem in dropping it. It is our own creation; we can immediately get out of it. But then you will have to be aware that unless you die totally to the past you cannot be reborn.
One has to die to the past to be born anew, and India has forgotten how to die, hence it has forgotten how to renew itself, rejuvenate itself. Instead of dying to the past it goes on making it glorious, it goes on praising it. It enjoys the nostalgia that ’We had a great golden past.’ And that is all sheer nonsense! That past has never existed; it is just imagination, nothing more – pure imagination. We have invented the past. Seeing the ugliness of the present, which is our doing, we go on escaping into the past – to avoid the present. There are only two ways: either escape into the past or escape into the future. Both are anti-rebellion.
To live in the present is the only rebellion I know of, the only real revolution. Get rid of the past, get rid of the future and live in the present, totally herenow, with intensity and with Passion. And that intensity brings freedom.
Source – Osho Book “Zen: Zest, Zip, Zap and Zing”