The Last Testament Vol 2 02

Second Discourse from the series of 30 discourses - The Last Testament Vol 2 by Osho.
You can listen, download or read all of these discourses on

Questline, CJOR Radio,
Vancouver, Canada

Glad to see you.
Good evening.
In one of the talks I heard, you were talking about a merging of Zorba and buddha, an aligning of the spiritual and the material. Can you please define enlightenment for me?
It simply means becoming aware of yourself. Ordinarily, a man is awake to everything around him, but is not aware who is awake and aware of all the things around. So we remain on the periphery of life, and the center remains in darkness. To bring light to that center, consciousness to that center, is what enlightenment is.
It is just being absolutely centered in yourself, focusing all your consciousness upon yourself, as if nothing else exists. Only you are.
Your own enlightenment came at the age of twenty-one?
And you likened it to an atomic explosion. You said it was like a light that never left you. How would your perception then, being enlightened, differ from people that have not awakened to their own enlightenment?
Just as, when a person is asleep, how are you going to define the difference between the person who is asleep and the person who is awake? The person who is asleep is dreaming, or not dreaming, but one thing is certain, he is not aware that he is asleep. The man who is awake, whatever he is doing one thing is certain, he is aware that he is awake.
This is the only difference on the spiritual level, too. A spiritually asleep person is not aware that he is asleep. And a spiritually awakened person is aware that he is awake. And, of course, he is aware of all those who are asleep.
The awakened person has two definite positions: first, that he is aware; second, that all others who are around him are asleep. But the sleeping person has neither of these two. He is not aware that he is asleep, and he is not aware that others around him are asleep.
What is blocking the awakening in most people?
Just a continuous flow of thoughts.
I'm sorry?
A continuity of thoughts, which is functioning as a barrier – that is the layer that keeps you unaware. Either you are thinking about the past, or you are thinking about the future. But neither the past exists nor the future. And between these two is the very small gap of the present, which you go on missing. That is the point where awakening happens.
That small gap, I make equivalent to an atomic gap – the smallest possible gap. It slips away so quickly, that if you are not completely free from thoughts you are going to miss it.
I saw some deer here, and they were obviously very much in this moment. Is man's intellectual mind the baggage that we're carrying around, which blocks our own awareness?
That is the only mind you have. And the deer are not aware of the present; it is you who are thinking that they are aware of the present. They are not. They are neither aware of the present, nor are they aware of the past, nor of the future. They don’t have any thought process.
It is man’s prerogative to be aware of the past, to be aware of the future. And, if he makes effort, then there is a potential in him to be aware of the present. No animal can become enlightened.
Every man has the potential to become enlightened. If he does not become, he is responsible – nobody else is responsible for it.
When you talk about enlightenment and being in this present moment, surely there must be planning for the future? There must be a certain amount of planning that's gone on around Rajneeshpuram?
I have not planned anything.
Well, the people around you have.
They are asleep, and they are free to plan.
Which brings me to my next question.
They are sound asleep and doing great things! I am the only person who is not doing anything.
Well, you're enlightened.
Because I cannot afford to dream, and to project, and to do. They can afford it; they are asleep.
When I hear you say that – in terms of my model of society, and my framework of reference to the society that I've been brought up in, if everyone were truly awakened, what type of society would it be? There has to be planning – but can you plan in the nowness of this moment for the future?
If everybody is awakened, there will be no planning and there will be no need for planning. People will function spontaneously. For example, I have never planned my life. I don’t know what I am going to say in the next sentence. You will ask a question, and my response will be there, but it is not prepared, no planning has gone into it.
So, if everybody was enlightened we would have a totally different world, almost inconceivable now. You will not have atomic weapons, you will not have war; you will not have crime, you will not have courts. You will not have politicians, you won’t have saints, popes. They will all disappear. You will have very innocent, simple, but joyous people all around. They will be doing things, but they will be very simple things, not complicated – nothing like nuclear weapons. They will make houses, but they will not have architecture and schools for architecture. They will do whatsoever is needed simply, without getting deeply into details. They will start a thing without knowing where it is going to end.
That’s how I have lived without planning all these three decades; not knowing anything about tomorrow. But everything has gone perfectly well. In fact, I cannot conceive that it could have been better.
How many enlightened beings are there, at this point in time?
I don’t know. There is no way of knowing.
Do you think the experience of enlightenment for other individuals would be the same as it was for you – that atomic explosion you referred to?
Not necessarily.
So it's a very individual situation?
It is very unique, and very individual.
And that's why it's so difficult for someone like yourself to explain what it is?
I am explaining it.
Yes, but it's still difficult.
And I am explaining it better than anybody else has ever explained it!
You've written…350 books have now been published on the subject.
I have not written a single book.
Let's talk about how to get to enlightenment, or how to become awakened to your enlightenment. I've read some of your work, and you say that there's two ways to do it: the alone route, through meditation; and the other, through relationships.
Would you talk about the subject of relationships, please, because in North America particularly we have a good track record of relationships coming and going, coming and going. And I don't see that awakening that you were talking about!
The basic thing is meditation. But meditation can happen in two ways: either it can happen in your absolute aloneness, unrelated to anybody – you can move inward in your silence. Just sitting there watching your thoughts moving, as you watch, you become aware of a strange phenomenon, that the gaps between thoughts are becoming bigger and bigger. The thought process is no longer as thick as it was before.
Just a few days of sitting silently, doing nothing, no interference with thoughts, no judgment about them, whether they are good or bad, just as if sitting by the side of a river and the river flows by – but the strange experience comes to you, that the more you are watchful, the less are the thoughts. As your watchfulness grows higher, your thoughts go on becoming less and less and less. A moment comes when your thoughts are nil and your awareness is full. It is exactly proportionate: one hundred percent awareness means zero thoughts; one hundred percent of thoughts means zero awareness.
So, either it is possible in your aloneness, or it is possible in your relationship. In relationships, particularly in moments when you are making love, meditation is very easy, because the very experience of making love brings you to a point where thoughts stop.
You are referring to the orgasm?
Yes, when thoughts stop and you are simply there, experiencing the thrill. If you know that this moment can be transformed into meditation, then this is the simplest way. Rather than sitting under a bo tree for six years, it can happen in your bedroom – there is no need to go into a forest – and far more easily, because you are following a natural course. Your biology will support you, your physiology will support you, your woman will support you. Everything will be supportive. You just have to be alert that when orgasm happens, don’t get lost in it. Remain a witness, remain a watcher.
So the whole thing is simple, but that is the difficult point. In relationships, the difficult point comes because in orgasm you are feeling so pleasant, so blissed out, that you will tend to forget your awareness.
You're talking about getting attached to the experience?
Getting lost into the experience, not attached. Attachment is a different thing. Getting lost, getting drowned in the experience. You should not get drowned in the experience. Your physiology is in it, your biology is in it, your chemistry is in it, but you are not. You are not. Just a watcher. So in your bedroom there are three persons, or even four.
Hopefully four! Are you talking about the eternal part of the eternal being, as being the witness?
That is the witness.
Could you expand a bit on attachment, getting attached? How attachment can also provide a blockage for awakening.
You just become immediately unconscious. The whole thing is to be conscious. The moment you become attached, the moment you become one with the experience, you lose consciousness – which will be a natural tendency. Millions of people know the experience of orgasm, but they don’t all become enlightened. For the simple reason, the natural tendency is that when there is such a blissful moment, who wants to be a witness? That will be missing the point in a way. You will be standing away – and when the experience for which you have been hankering your whole life is happening.
And it is a very small moment. It is not going to continue for hours so that you can also be there, you can get into it and get out. There is not time. It is very momentary, very atomic. The natural tendency is to be drowned in it. That’s why many people come very close to enlightenment but miss by just a single step.
Let me interrupt you here. When you say “merging into the experience,” is that different from you hear a lot of talk about a “oneness,” “being at one with all”? Are you differentiating between those two?
They are different things.
Could you just expand on that? How that would be different?
Being one with all, is a by-product of becoming a witness. It comes as a shadow to it; it does not precede it. Merging into an experience precedes it. And if you are merged into an experience, then you are in the state of a drunkard. It may be love, it may be anything, but you are drunk. You are not alert, aware. And when I say “becoming one with the whole,” that is not in your hands. That comes as a reward of being a witness.
What you can do is to be a witness. There, your doing ends. More than that, man cannot do.
So, an enlightened person like yourself, you would never react to anything? If I got angry and jumped up and down, or swore at you, you would not react? You would act, would you?
No, I would respond. I would not react. Reaction is impossible. Reaction is always unconscious, and response is always conscious.
For example, Jesus says, “If somebody hits you on one cheek, give him the other too.” Being a Christian, if I hit you on one cheek, you may remember Jesus’ statement and you may give me the other cheek. This is reaction. You are not responding to the moment. Your mind is reminding you what has to be done, what is right to do. This is the moment when you can prove that you are really a Christian. All these things will not take much time – just in a flash. That will be reaction. Response is unpredictable.
It's not conditioned?
No, it is not conditioned. It is unpredictable because it is not Christian, it is not Hindu, it is not Buddhist. It is my individuality. So even I cannot say what I will do if you get angry.
Do you have a master-disciple relationship with the people here?
No, they are all my friends.
Where do you draw the line between love and idolatry? Can you differentiate between these two? There's a lot of love toward you, but is there a point where love can go over to sort of idol worship?
That is love going wrong, love moving in a wrong direction. Adoration is not love: you have put somebody on a high pedestal, and that is not an act of love. It has its consequences. If you adore somebody and put somebody higher than you, you are bound to put somebody lower than you. You would like to be adored by somebody. It is an organic phenomenon.

It happened: I was meeting one of the shankaracharyas, the Hindu popes. He was sitting on a high platform, and, just by his side on a smaller platform, another Hindu monk was sitting.
He introduced me, saying, “Do you see who this man is, sitting by my side?”
I said, “I don’t know him.”
He said, “He has been the chief justice of the Supreme Court of India. But he is so humble that he never sits on the same platform that I am sitting on.”
I said, “I can see that.” He had a smaller platform.
But I was sitting on the floor. And I told that chief justice of the Supreme Court, “You should dig a hole in the earth here, and sit there, because I am sitting here. What kind of humbleness is this?”
And I told the shankaracharya, “He is simply waiting. The moment you fall into your grave, he will jump on your platform. And there is a third sannyasin sitting on the floor; he will jump on his platform. This is simply a hierarchy. And you call it humbleness? Neither you are humble nor he is humble. You are fulfilling his ego by calling him the most humble person.
“And what is the need to remind me that he is a retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of India? What is the need? He is a sannyasin now, he has renounced the world – but he has not renounced the retirement. He has not yet forgotten that he was the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Do you recognize the fact, that your saying this is simply fulfilling your ego too? – That you don’t have ordinary disciples? Calling him humble, you fulfill his ego. And he, refusing to sit on the same platform as you, fulfills your ego. This is a mutual conspiracy. You are each other’s enemies. You are destroying each other, without knowing what you are doing; you are poisoning.”

Adoration is dangerous. Anybody who adores somebody, would like in the wake of it to be adored by somebody else. Otherwise, it is impossible for him to adore somebody – that would be only one pole. Where is the other pole? A polarity is needed.
In love there is no hierarchy. Nobody is higher than you; you don’t require anybody to be inferior to you. There is no question of equality, either. When there is nothing higher and nothing lower, the very question of equality becomes irrelevant. Everybody is himself.
Originally, I asked that because some people look at you as a guru, and feel that they can see themselves through you, that you can mirror them to themselves.
That is their fault.
Is that a fault?
Would you expand why that would be a fault, if they…
Because I am nobody’s guru.
You don't have a capacity to mirror me back to myself?
I have the capacity to mirror, but no mirror needs to be a guru.
I'm sorry?
In your bathroom you have a mirror. Is that mirror your guru?
No, no! I'm just asking a question.
Then what is the point? A mirror is just a mirror. There is no need to make a guru out of it. It is its nature: just because it is a mirror, it reflects. There is no need to bow down and touch the feet of the mirror, and put the mirror on your head and move around the world saying that you have a guru because it mirrors you! There is no need.
Yes, I can mirror. You have only to open your eyes. Otherwise, what can the mirror do? You can stand before the mirror with closed eyes. The mirror will still be reflecting, but a man with closed eyes. The man will not know that he is being reflected, he will not know that there is a mirror. The mirror will be doing its function; it is nothing on the part – in fact, the mirror is not doing anything, it is just the nature of the mirror. If you are not there, and a dog is standing there, he will be mirrored.
Let me get to some of your quotes that are out in the press: the one where you say there is no God. Could you expand on that? Are you saying that there is no God outside of creation, per se?
Certainly I am saying that there is no creator. Creation itself is enough unto itself; it needs no outside agency to create it. The moment you accept an outside agency to create it, you fall into a vicious circle, because the reasoning is, “How can existence be there without being created by someone?” That is the reasoning of all the religions. If you accept their reasoning, then the question arises: “Who created God?”
And, if God can be there without being created, then what is the problem? Then existence can be there without being created. You accept principally that something can be there without being created, so why unnecessarily go from A to B, from B to C? Those are all hypotheses. God A creates God B, God B creates God C – unnecessarily. The whole of theology is simply nonsense. It begins with God theo means “God.” And logy means “logic about God” – that is a contradiction in terms.
So creation itself is God. We're God, you're God, I'm God, everybody here is God. The whole game is God.
Yes, if you want to use the word God.
Or source.
There is no problem – there is no problem for me. But then you will have to change the meaning, because the donkey will be God, even the yonkey will be God. Better to drop that word, because that word is dangerous. Then, sometimes if you are riding on a donkey you are riding on a god. Sometimes you are…
I guess the force that gives us life or whatever it is – energy.
I would like to call it pure consciousness, just consciousness. Or, if you are too attached to the word God, call it godliness. But don’t make it a noun, make it a quality. Godliness is perfectly okay.
Why do you say make it a quality rather than a noun?
Because the moment you make it a noun you kill it. The moment you make it a noun you stop its growth. Nouns don’t grow, only verbs grow.
You're saying the verb is dynamic?
So you see God – as brought across by the Christian world here – as outside of creation, as being a stumbling block to being in the nowness of this moment – is that what you're saying?
Is that why you have also been quoted as saying that “Jesus was at best a madman” – I'm paraphrasing here – and that you could “find another in any mad house”? Is that why you seem to be recently pushing all other religions per se out of the way? – Because of this attachment, that it's keeping people out of the moment?
That is one of the reasons. There are a thousand and one more reasons.
Well, share a couple with me!
Jesus would be a crackpot even if he accepted that there is no God – that would not make much difference.
Because there have been people like Gautam Buddha who does not believe in God, still he makes the same kind of statements as Jesus is making – and I will also call those statements mad. For example, the story is – just as it is in Jesus’ case, who declares himself the only begotten son of God – Buddha cannot say that, because there is no God in his ideology. But he declares, “I am the suprememost awakened person.” That is equivalent to God. Why should you be the suprememost? Past, present, future; Buddha is the suprememost enlightened person. Nobody can go higher than him. If I meet him I’m going to kick him. He is a crackpot.
This type of person – he does not believe in God, but he puts himself in God’s place – he is in fact even worse than Jesus Christ. At least Jesus Christ is only the begotten son of God. He does not claim himself to be God. Krishna claims himself to be God. Now, Krishna is a bigger… All these people need psychiatry.
Hmm. You also say that Jesus was suicidal.
Yes, he was suicidal.
The reason I am laughing is that I'm thinking of getting Jerry Falwell on my show, following yours. I'm sort of running through my mind what sort of reaction this would make.
Jesus is in many ways trying to prove that he is the awaited messiah of the Jews. And that is the whole conflict between the Jews and Jesus. Jesus was never a Christian, you have to remember that. He was born a Jew, he lived as a Jew, he died as a Jew. He never heard the word Christian. It was only after three hundred years, when the Bible was translated into Greek, that messiah became christ, and the followers of Christ became Christians. This is a three hundred year, later development.
Jesus was continuously emphasizing that he is the awaited messiah, and not a single rabbi was convinced of it. Those twelve fools that he convinced – who became his apostles – were all illiterate, poor people: fishermen, woodcutters, farmers, who had no idea of what he was talking about. They were simply happy that they were the followers, the chosen few, of the only begotten son of God. Something was wrong with their psychology too. They were becoming special without any cause, and they were raising Jesus as high as possible – because with Jesus they go on rising higher.

The night Jesus was caught, you will be surprised that his disciples asked him, “Lord, now you will be gone, how long will it take for you to come back and take us?”
He said, “Soon I will be coming back in glory, with God’s light, and I will take you all. I am going to prepare places for you.”
They said, “One more question: of course you will be on the right side of God – who amongst us twelve will be by your side? Who will be second to you?”
They wanted to decide the hierarchy. This type of gathering cannot be sane. These people would be perfectly right if they were in politics.
Not to defend it, but Jesus himself didn't write any of that, his own thoughts.
Nobody has ever written.
It was filtered through other people, the disciples particularly, and I am wondering if you are not being a bit harsh – because let's suppose…you have now had 350 books published, and even then, when it's there in writing and your thoughts are there, and you're talking in an analogy at times to get the real message across – people must get behind what you're saying, or people just take things literally. And I think that misinterpretation has happened in Christianity, hasn't it?
Let me explain to you: it is not only about Christianity – Buddha has not written anything, Mahavira has not written anything, Krishna has not written anything. No founder of any religion has written anything. They have all spoken, so everything was written by others. But as far as Jesus is concerned, it is more probable that he said it than Krishna or Buddha or Mahavira, because there are four gospels – in fact, five: five disciples writing almost exactly the same thing, without any contradiction. It is enough proof that it has come from the same source, that the person has said something like that, because it is reflected in all the five gospels in almost similar words.
There has also been a lot of talk that over two thousand years the Bible has been changed by the church itself. There is talk about references to reincarnation having been taken out.
That is true, that is true. The church has changed it. But fortunately one gospel has remained outside the church. It is the gospel of Thomas, on which I have spoken. I’m the only man in two thousand years who has spoken on something which has remained outside the church, because the church accepted those four gospels. Thomas was not there. He was in India, so his gospel remained in South India. But that gospel exactly repeats what the other four gospels say – of course more accurately, more exactly and more significantly. The churches may have done something, but they have not messed about so much, because there is an independent source to compare with.
As far as Jesus is concerned, it is very difficult to defend him on this ground – that these were perhaps not his words. These were certainly his words.
Do you find any redeeming features in the other religions – Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity?
Christianity, Judaism, – these religions have nothing to offer except stupidity. Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism have much to offer. Hinduism is just in the middle of these two – much nonsense, much sense, all mixed. What Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism have to offer in essence, is the method of meditation. Those are the three religions which are based on the method of meditation. All three have no idea of God. All three are completely free of this father figure, which is really a projection of child psychology – you need a protector, you need somebody to create, you need.
Those three religions are more mature. The contribution is the same. Their methods of meditation may be a little bit different – I have tried all their methods – but they reach to the same conclusion. They are all existential, experiential. They are not theoretical, and they are not based on belief. They don’t require you to believe anything. Their approach is very scientific. So those three religions have offered one thing, which is all that is needed. They have offered many more things which are rubbish. And it is very difficult for someone, unless he himself has meditated and experienced the space, to find from the whole garbage…
For example, Buddhism has as many as thirty-three thousand scriptures, and each scripture has hundreds of commentaries on it, and then commentaries on commentaries. It is said that if all the literature on Buddhism in India, in Tibet, in China, in Japan, in Korea, in Sri Lanka could be accumulated, then you could put all the books of the whole world on one side, and still the books on Buddhism would be weightier – just in weight.
You claim to have the only religion, though.
I claim to have the first and the last religion, for the simple reason that except meditation I have nothing else. So I have found the very essential core. No garbage around it, nothing non-essential, just a simple methodology. And I have looked into all the methods of meditation – there are 112 methods.
I have spoken on the 112 methods of meditation. And out of 112 methods that have been practiced in the East by these three religions, I have chosen one essential point that connects all those 112 methods. They differ only in small details, but their basic foundation is witnessing.
I'd like to move on, if I might, to your relationship with your neighbors here in Oregon. You're quoted at one time as saying that you are disappointed: “I always loved the American constitution and now I think it would have been better if I had not come here as I am feeling absolutely disappointed. That constitution is bogus. The words freedom, individualism, capitalism, freedom of expression, are all just words.”
You seem to have the protection here, though. You have been able to put this oasis in very arid land. Why would you say you are disappointed in the constitution?
Because it is a question of degrees. I have respected the American constitution more than anybody else in the whole world – Americans included – because I have respected the constitution as the only democratic constitution in the world. Hence my disappointment. I would not have been disappointed in the Soviet Union, because I had no respect for their dictatorship in the first place. If they had even killed me, I would have accepted it as a matter of course.
But I cannot accept any nonsense here in America, because of my respect for the constitution, my respect for the words democracy, freedom, individuality, respect for the individual. We have created this oasis, not because of the American government, but in spite of the American government. They are creating every kind of hindrance, they are making every kind of trouble, and they are absolutely illegal. What they are doing is unconstitutional; it is against their own constitution. That’s why I say that…
But the constitution is really that which will eventually protect your rights. I know that the government – which is people – has been causing you problems here. But I just thought the choice of the words, “the constitution here”…that is the protection, that is the umbrella, ultimately.
Wait a moment! – That’s why I will protect the constitution.
You're doing that?
Not the constitution; the constitution is a dead thing. What can the constitution do for me? I will do something for the constitution. I am going to fight for the constitution, against the Americans who are prostituting it.
Why do you think the neighbors around here have been so disturbed about your moving in?
It would have been the same anywhere.
For the simple reason that man is an animal, has come from animals, has a territorial imperative. It is their territory and we are strangers. And you will be surprised to know that even in India where I was born, I was a stranger – because I did not believe in their traditions, I did not believe in their conventions, I did not support their religions, I did not support their values. I was a stranger in India too, and the Indian neighbors were as much against me as the Oregonians. So the Oregonians are not doing anything special.
But why are people reacting this way? Why do they feel threatened by your presence here?
It is not a question of my presence. Why was Jesus crucified by the Jews? Why was Gandhi assassinated by the Hindus? Why were many attempts made on the life of Buddha? It is a simple thing to understand. That’s why I’m not angry about it, I accept it as part of man’s animal nature. I am a constant threat to them.
For example, my people are happy, rejoicing, dancing, enjoying. And those Oregonians around me look sad, bored – as the whole world is bored and sad. And everybody is feeling cheated by life; nobody seems to find contentment. Nobody is able to rejoice in life. And suddenly they see a few strangers coming here and enjoying, for no reason at all; trying hard, working twelve and fourteen hours a day and changing the desert. And in four years we have changed it. Now we are self-supporting, self-sufficient for our food, our vegetables, for our milk. And this is when everything is being done against us.
We are fighting in every court. We must have the biggest law firm in the world – four hundred legal experts. Here, four hundred sannyasins are continually working to fight unnecessarily in so many courts. We are winning in every case, and they know that finally we are going to win. But they can delay at least, they can harass at least – and this is human nature.
So I’m not angry about it, and I don’t think that it is anything unexpected. But as far as America is concerned, my expectations were higher than about any other country. It is a new country, only three hundred years old. It should be more fresh; it should be more capable of existing with new ideas, new people. But they are behaving just as idiotically as the Indians.
India is an old country, almost dead. I was not disappointed with the Indians. They made attempts on my life, and I was not disappointed even in that. But with America I have a certain love affair.
Do you see the possibility of reconciling your differences with the neighbors around here?
That depends on them. I never compromise on any point. Either I am right or I am wrong. If they can prove me wrong, I am perfectly willing to be with them. Or I am ready to prove them wrong, then they have to be with me. I don’t compromise on any point. Compromise is only for impotent people.
You are also quoted somewhere… You said, “If they would hate us” you could deal with hate, because you could transmute that into love.
Yes, that is true.
But you can't stand being ignored.
That’s right.
But from the outside, you've hardly been ignored by the press. I mean since you broke silence.
They cannot ignore, and I will not allow them to ignore.
Expand on that a bit more. You say “We can't stand being ignored.” You're not being ignored. What did you mean by that?
I mean by that, that whatsoever the media is doing right now is not according to my standards. Although my commune is small, it is a worldwide phenomenon. We have communes all over the world, even in East Germany – even in Soviet Russia. Of course they are underground.
They're not wearing red and orange, you say?
They cannot.
Red has become my monopoly. I have taken it away from the communists.
So expand on that a bit more. You're disappointed in the news coverage that you've been getting?
Yes, it is nothing. Much more is needed, and we will bring it.
So you don't mind whether it is sensationalized?
That does not matter.
As long as you're getting coverage?
Anything will do. That we can manage.
You predicted the start of the apocalypse, a ten-to-fifteen-year period of transformation here on earth. It was supposed to start in ‘84. Has this started, and what can you point to, to say that it's started?
Just creating gossips – don’t bother about these things.
That’s my way of not being ignored. I can predict anything, without any trouble.
You can predict anything?
Well has it happened? ‘Cause I think in ‘83 you said it was going to start in ‘84.
It is not going to happen.
It's over. We're in the new age!
I don’t take life seriously.
That's fine with me.
I'd like to take a quote from the Osho Times regarding AIDS, which I know that the entire community here is quite concerned about. And, I might add, is dealing with, I think, more realistically than the outside world: “AIDS is the ultimate development of homosexuality. It has no cure. You have gone so far away from nature that there is no way back. You have broken all the bridges behind you. That's the disease AIDS.”
Could you expand on that statement?
That’s exactly right.
Jerry Falwell says that that is God's revenge on the homosexuals. Are you saying that homosexuality has moved that far away from nature – not God but nature – that it is nature coming back at the homosexual community?
God himself is a homosexual. First make it a point. The Christian trinity has not a single woman in it; it is a gay company. If anybody has to suffer from AIDS, it is your God first.
Why did you say “your” God?
Because you are quoting somebody.
I'm quoting you!
Oh, Jerry Falwell.
No, I said: “How does that differ?” I was asking you…
It is absolutely different, because he is again trying to create fear in people. He’s not giving a factual analysis of the disease. Let me give you an example. There was an earthquake in Bihar, in India, and Mahatma Gandhi said that the earthquake happened because God was punishing the sinners. I was very young, but I wrote him a letter: “It is very strange that God should punish the sinners only in Bihar. What about the whole of the world? Do you consider that only Bihar consists only of sinners, and the whole world consists of saints?”
And he had neither guts nor a gentleman’s attitude: he never sent back any answer. I wrote a letter to Ramdas, his son – because he was my friend – I wrote to Ramdas, asking him whether his father had received my letter or not. He said he had received it, “But he has no answer to give so he is keeping quiet.”
These people are diverting things: now bringing God into it, that God has punished homosexuals. Ask that fellow: “Then why has God not punished lesbians?” – because no lesbian creates AIDS. In fact, if women are intelligent they should all become lesbians. That is the greatest safety for women, and then they will leave men to suffer from AIDS or whatsoever they want to do. And then we will see how God punishes them. This is strange, that homosexuals should suffer and lesbians be protected.
If I could just summarize your response: you're saying that Mr. Falwell is coming from a fear perspective. Using fear, emotionally.
He is.
You're making, from your transparent ego, simply a comment – with no emotion behind it?
What I am saying exactly, is that AIDS is the ultimate outcome of a perversion. God has nothing to do with it. Religion has no ground to exploit on this. It is a simple fact that has tremendous implications. One, if men and women are not allowed freedom from marriage, then there is going to be perversion of many kinds, because monogamy is unnatural.
It is unnatural for men?
It is unnatural. There is no man who would not like to love many women. In fact, Soren Kierkegaard has a statement, “I would like to make love to all the women of the earth. Still I don’t think that I will be satisfied.” And he is stating a very significant point. Religions have managed a certain kind of bondage between men and women, and they have created the idea of sin and guilt so that people cannot easily move from one relationship to another.
In countries in the Middle East, for example, it is very difficult to make contact with a woman – even to see the face of a woman. And in the Middle East homosexuality is very ancient, for the simple reason that whenever a man wanted just to change his taste, women were not available. He had to look toward men or even toward animals. This is ugly.
If we make marriage dissolve – for example, in my commune marriage is just a game, like any other game. And every game has its rules, so marriage has its rules. But no rules of any game are ultimate. We make them, we can change them. In this commune, it is very easy to move from one woman to another, from one man to another, without creating any kind of scandal, without feeling any guilt, without creating any jealousy.
In the traditional marriage, monogamous marriage, if lust is within the individual for different partners, different experiences, then what you're saying is that the individual is trying to control these desires so much that they must be dissipating a lot of energy.
It is, it is. The more monogamous a country, the more people will be repressed. And their repressiveness will become violence, war, homosexuality, prostitution, sodomy. It will take all kinds of forms, which will be difficult because they have already moved away from nature. If we want that the world should not end in such an ugly disease, marriage has to be dissolved. Every religion has to drop the idea of celibacy – because all those celibates are bound to become homosexuals.
All your popes, all your bishops, all your cardinals, all your priests of any religion, all your monks – Buddhist, Christian or Hindu does not matter, because you have all put men and women separately. There are monasteries where no woman has entered in one thousand years. Then those monks… Man is intelligent: he will try to find some way out for his repressed energy. Now what can you do? Your biology does not change just by the idea of celibacy. Neither does your blood change its ways, nor your food, nor your hormones. Nothing changes by your idea of celibacy. Your idea of celibacy is simply an idea. Your body knows nothing about it.
The body goes on creating semen. What are you going to do with it? How long are you going to repress it? And repressing it is a double wastage, because in repression you need much energy to repress your own energy. So you become a vicious circle, you cannot create anything; so none of the monks of any religion have been creative. They have not contributed anything to human civilization. They have been parasites, and they have created masturbation, homosexuality, lesbianism, sodomy.
This is all through the repression?
It is all because of repression. Man’s sexual energy should be allowed absolute freedom. It should be man’s birthright.
Are you saying “man” including both men and women?
You predicted that two-thirds of the world's population would die of AIDS. Do you still stand by that?
Perhaps more, because there is nobody bothering to do anything about it.
It's taking a while.
Not a single step in any country is being taken to prevent it. On the contrary, every government is trying to repress the information about AIDS. Every individual who suffers from AIDS is trying to repress the information about it leaking to the public, because he will be condemned. If you find that people in a monastery are suffering from AIDS, that whole monastery and the whole religion will be condemned. So every vested interest is trying to repress information.
The disease has already spread widely, and the problem is that it is not only by sexual intercourse that you can get it. You can get it by kissing somebody because saliva is a carrier. Now, kissing should be prohibited completely, absolutely, with no exception. Tears carry it: if you kiss a woman and a tear comes into your mouth you can get it. And my understanding is if tears and saliva can carry it, then perhaps soon they will discover that perspiration also carries it – any liquid coming out of the body.
This is the first time that there is such a dangerous disease, so contagious, which has no cure – because basically, it is not an ordinary disease, it is more an existential disease. A man loses interest in women – for any reason: religious, physical, medical, legal, or any reason – a man loses interest in women, becomes interested in men. Soon he gets fed up with that, because in man and woman there is a contrast, a polarity, an attraction. Between man and man there is no polarity. It is just like trying to create electricity with only positive poles, without the negative pole.
Two men making love simply means similar energy, which will not be creative of life. Lovemaking with a woman is healthy. In places where older people are not condemned for lovemaking, people live longer. In countries like India, where even a person at the age of fifty starts feeling, “Now it is ugly, guilty, a sin, when your sons are married, to make love to your wife – it is not right,” people die sooner.
In the Caucasus there are people who are 170 years old still making love, 180 year-old people. But you cannot call them old, because they are still working in the fields, just like any young man. And my explanation is that, in the Caucasus sex has never been repressed, but has been appreciated, enjoyed, loved. In the Caucasus it is just like with the Eskimos: if you are a guest, the wife will be offered to you. Just as we offer food and a good room to the guest, the wife is also offered to you. It is not thought in any way to be immoral. People in the Caucasus live longer than any other people in the world. And they are the poorest people, with no medical facilities, with not enough food.
My feeling is that man can live at least three hundred years, if his energy is not disturbed and perverted so that he starts fighting with himself. That is very destructive. AIDS is just your own energy fighting with itself. Your energy has to come to a balanced state, like in those parts of Russia. The balance is such that except death, nothing can disturb it.
I'd like to get to another quote. You say: “That's how we are going to take over the whole of America.” Are you saying that you are going to be taking over America in the sense of controlling it – for example, in government, philosophy? Or just through your happiness?
Just through our rejoicing, singing, dancing. We are gypsies, and gypsies have their way of conquering the world.
Are you sending out a warning you might be moving somewhere else?
Certainly, with my whole circus.
That's interesting.
And tell Canada – it is not far away!
You just told them!
Are you the ringmaster of this circus?
I'd like to get back to when you say: “I have the only religion.” Are you saying: “I, Osho, have the only religion”?
Or are we our own masters – each of us individually?
Each individual here. When I say “I,” that is not my ego. It represents all my people around the world. I am just their spokesman.
What I am trying to get at is, are you saying that “I, Peter, have the only religion”; “I, Tom, have the only religion”; “I, Mary…”? That it's within each individual?
No, when I say that this is the first and the last religion, the meaning is that all the religions up to now have not been scientific. They were all superstitious, they were based on a certain belief system. Belief was basic. Now, nobody can believe without repressing doubt. Belief is only repressing doubt. If there is no doubt, there is no need for belief. You don’t believe in the sun, you don’t believe in science, you don’t believe in light. You know they are, there so no belief is needed. All religions up to now have remained beliefs. That’s why they are called “faiths.”
Three hundred years ago, for the first time, science started a new movement which was based on doubt: just absolutely against belief. Go on doubting till you find something which is un-doubtable. That’s my approach too. I am trying for religion to have a scientific base.
Science inquires into objects, religion inquires into your own subjectivity. But the method need not be different: the same scientific observation, I call witnessing. Very alert, just go on inquiring within yourself, without any belief, without any prejudice. If you have courage enough to go without any prejudice, if you have courage enough to go without any belief system, soon you will stumble upon truth. It is there within you.
I say this is the first religion because it is the first scientific approach toward man’s interiority. And I say that this is the last also, because there is no other possibility. There are only two possibilities, either belief or doubt. Hence, I say it is the last, because you cannot do anything else: either you believe or you doubt. If you believe, you will never know the truth. If you doubt persistently, and go on doubting, you are bound to find it. And when doubt finds something, it is no longer belief, it is no longer faith. It is your experience. You can stand by it. You need not go to Jesus or Buddha, you need not take support from the Bible or the Koran. You are your own authority.
So when I say this is the first and the last religion, I am not talking about Tom, Dick and Harry. I am simply stating a fact: that no religion up to now has tried doubt as its basic method. This is the first religion. And I am also calling it the last, for the simple reason that there is nothing else that can be done. Only two things are possible and I have done the second thing. The first, all the other religion have done, and failed.
Let's touch on some other things. Clairvoyance – is that a reality?
What are your comments about people that channel what they claim to be spirit entities?
They are just crazy, surrounded by idiots.
So somebody like Edgar Cayce – you've heard of Edgar Cayce? – The Sleeping Prophet.
Just rubbish.
Where does it come from? It would appear to be legitimate – something happens. Is it all from the mind?
It is all psychic – just mind.
Can you give me some comments on some people here: Ronald Reagan, the president of the United States.
Just a third-rate cowboy-film actor.
Are you aware of the prime minister of Canada, Brian Mulroney?
No, I have never heard about that fellow.
You haven't?
He’s fortunate.
What's a typical day like for you?
My daily life is just a constant bliss. Everything is blissful: eating, sleeping, talking, just sitting silently doing nothing. Everything to me is meditation. Sitting under my shower is meditation, eating my food is meditation, because I am always the witness. Even in sleep I am a witness: I know that I am sleeping.
So it is, in a way, the same witness, but enjoying different things, different scenes. And, because I never think of the past or of the future, nothing bores me. You can go on giving me the same food every day and I will enjoy it the same way every day. My sannyasins who work in my kitchen, they get bored!
Are you vegetarian?
Yes, I am vegetarian.
Is diet important to awaken?
No, it is not important, but once you are awakened it is difficult to destroy life for your food. So, before enlightenment it is not important, but after enlightenment it is immensely important.
What are your thoughts on the drug problem in the North American society – cocaine usage, marijuana?
In fact, all the governments should help the scientists to find better drugs with fewer side effects, rather than repressing drugs. It is stupid. Whenever you stop something you give great importance to it, and particularly for the youth – it becomes a provocation. The government is responsible for all the young people who are being destroyed by drugs. There is no need.

In my birthplace, just in front of my house, there was a beautiful temple. I persuaded the priest of the temple that because of the big wall around the campus, people used that wall as urination place. It was in such a place where you could sit down and nobody would see you.
“So write on the wall in big letters that pissing here is absolutely prohibited.”
He, of course, was convinced. Before that, nobody had pissed there; after that you could count lines of people!
The priest was very angry. He came to my father and said, “Your boy is dangerous. I have never seen people queuing, and when I ask them they say, ‘Just because you have written it, immediately the idea arises.’”

Any prohibition is dangerous. But the Christian God started the whole stupid thing, by prohibiting Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of knowledge, and the tree of life. Now, in the Garden of Eden there must have been millions of trees. If God had not prohibited those two trees, I don’t think even now we would have found them. It was impossible. But prohibiting it – and then dumping the whole thing on the poor snake, the serpent – God had done it already. He provoked it.
All these governments should make an effort that better drugs are available – which give you more euphoria, more joy, and no side effects. Science is now capable of doing it.
But you don't allow drugs here in Rajneeshpuram.
But you are saying outside of Rajneeshpuram it's okay?
No, I am saying these drugs are not okay. And the reason is, because the governments are prohibiting them, otherwise, science could have figured out very easily… LSD can be purified, and it should be made available without prescription, through medical stores, through hospitals. In fact, every hospital should have a room where anybody who wants a drug experience should be given it under medical care, because it is worth having. And I think that is the only way to take away the whole charm from drugs.
In India they have tried many times to prohibit alcohol. And each time they prohibit it, many more people start drinking. And they drink the wrong kind of alcohol, because it is made by the people themselves. All kinds of poisoning accidents happen. Thousands of people die because they have drunk something they knew nothing about. Again, and again, the same stupidity. Then they withdraw the prohibition and the percentage of people drinking alcohol falls immediately.
In fact, the way you have made society, people are so miserable that they need something to forget what is happening in their life: what their wife is doing to them, what their boss is doing to them, what their husband is doing to them, what their children are doing to them. Those poor people need something to have at least a few hours of relaxation.
My people do not need it; that’s why I don’t allow it here. We have better methods. Our meditations are nothing but drugs – perfect drugs, without any chemicals in them. A man who can meditate will not be able to enjoy drugs, any drug, because his meditation gives him so much peace, and the drug will disturb it.
Drugs never give you anything. If you are too disturbed, then a drug relaxes you. But if you are at the peak of your bliss, the drug will bring you down. So people who live in the valleys need drugs; people who live on the peaks don’t need them. Our people don’t need them. It is not because of any government law that we are prohibiting people from bringing drugs in – it is because of our own people, they don’t need it. In fact, it is destructive of their meditation, their love, their joy. The drug makes them dull, stupid, takes away the sharpness of their intelligence.
But, what I am saying about the outside world is that governments should emphasize the fact, that it is a tremendous problem. Sending young people to prison does not help; you simply destroy those young people, you destroy their education. And I have not seen that a single person who has been imprisoned has been changed. He comes out and again goes back to the drugs. Now he comes out more professional than he had gone in, because there are experts already inside the prison who know more about drugs. He was just an amateur. From all those people he gets ideas of other drugs that you will get in Kabul, Manali, in Kathmandu, in Goa – where you will get the real thing.
There is no need for all this nonsense. Courts are involved, jails are involved, young people are destroyed. It is the duty of every government to provide people with some kind of relaxation, some kind of peace, some kind of silence. If you cannot provide meditation, at least you can provide medicine. To me, drugs should be medicine. And if we want, we can change all the bad effects; it can become a healthy thing. Each Sunday morning, rather than go to the church just go on a trip!
On that note I'd like to thank you very much for spending this time with me.
I enjoyed it.
The listeners, I know, will very much appreciate it.
Come again.

Spread the love