---
section: Library
booktitle: "The Last Testament, Vol 3"
booktype: "Discourses"
bookcode: "LAST3"
dategiven: "28 September 1985 pm"
place: " in Sanai Grove"
chapternum: "Chapter #7"
chaptertitle: "None"
acode: "8509285"
shorttitle: "LAST307"
audio: "Yes"
video: "Yes"
esttime: "99mins"
displaytitle: "The Last Testament, Vol 3: Chapter #7"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->
> [!info]
> Note
>
[NOTE: This is a typed tape transcript and has not been edited or published, as of August 1992. It is for reference use only. The interviewer's remarks have been omitted where not relevant to Osho's words]
INTERVIEW BY SWAMI VIDEHA, ITALY
QUESTION: TRANSLATED IN ENGLISH THE NAME OF THE NEWSPAPER IS "THE PLEASURES", AND IT'S A MAGAZINE WHICH LIKES TO HAVE MANY QUESTIONS AND SHORT ANSWERS.


ANSWER: You just start.
QUESTION: SO, WE START FROM THE IDEA OF PLEASURE. CAN ENLIGHTENMENT BE THE TOPMOST PLEASURE, AS A DEFINITION?


ANSWER: It is not pleasure. Pleasure is always something opposed to pain. It is never separate from pain. So pain can become pleasure. That's why there are masochists in the world who torture themselves and enjoy. Your so-called saints are nothing but people who know the art of changing pain into pleasure. Pain can become pleasure; vice versa is also true: pleasure can become pain. For example, it is a great pleasure to kiss someone you love.


But if you are forced to continue kissing -- a gun behind you -- how long is the pleasure going to be pleasure? Soon the pleasure will become a pain. You eat something: it is pleasant, there is pleasure; but if you eat too much it becomes pain -- otherwise you wouldn't see so many obese people.


Thirty million people in America are suffering from this disease. They cannot stop eating. The pleasure is so much that they go on eating, knowing perfectly well that it is going to become pain.


So one thing has to be understood: enlightenment is not pleasure because it can never become pain. There is nothing opposite to enlightenment. The unenlightened person, his state of mind, is not opposite to the enlightened person and his state of mind. The unenlightened state is simply the absence of enlightenment -- it is not opposed. It is like darkness.... You just bring a candle in the room and there is no darkness. It has never been there; it has no positive existence of its own, it is simply absence of light.


So the unenlightened person is simply asleep, the enlightened person is awake. There is no opposition. Enlightenment is the transcendence of all dualities: pleasure, pain; love, hate, life, death -- all oppositions.


Enlightenment is the situation where you have come to a point of witnessing all the opposites as complementaries and you are only a witness. So I cannot say it is pleasure -- I can say it is bliss. And that is the difference between bliss and pleasure. Pleasure needs something; you are dependent.


If you love someone, you are dependent on the person-that's why you are always afraid to lose them; also suspicious, also jealous. You love a woman -- she is your pleasure, but side by side all these things are growing in you: suspicion.... You can never be certain whether she loves you or not, there is no way. She can pretend. She may be loving somebody else -- if not now, tomorrow. What is the guarantee that she will love you always? There are more beautiful people around, more talented, more charming, more charismatic; hence there is suspicion, fear, jealousy. This is your pleasure!
With all these things mixed in, what kind of pleasure is this?
Bliss is absolutely pure.


First, it is not dependent on anyone, it is your own. Its source is within you, it does not come from outside; hence, nobody can take it away. There is tremendous strength instead of weakness, instead of fear there is great fearlessness. Instead of feeling jealous, there is great compassion, because your bliss cannot be stolen, cannot be taken away.


When Alexander the Great came to India he wanted one sannyasin to come with him as a guest to Athens, because his master, Aristotle, had asked only one gift: "Bring an authentic sannyasin with you, because that is the only thing the West is unaware of. We don't know what kind of man is a sannyasin." Wherever he went Alexander inquired, "Can I find an authentic sannyasin?" People said, "It is very difficult -- you have come a little late. Three hundred years ago there was Gautam Buddha, Mahavira, Sanjay Vilethiputta, Ajit Keshkambal and there were many people who were authentic, realized beings -- but now it is very difficult to find such people. But you can go on searching as you go on invading the country; perhaps somewhere...."


He came across a man who was a naked fakir standing by the side of the river early in the morning -- a beautiful sunrise. Alexander approaches him with his naked sword and tells him, "You have two alternatives: one, be Alexander the Great's guest, which is a rare honor -- it has never been given to anybody, and I can promise you it will not be given to anybody else again, so you will be unique -- but you will have to come with me to Athens. My master wants to meet an authentic sannyasin."


And the sannyasin laughed loudly and said, "First, you drop the idea of Alexander the Great. Anybody who thinks himself great is not great. One who is really great is not even aware of it. So first you drop that word. That is sick and shows inferiority. Secondly, put your sword back in its sheath; it won't be needed. Thirdly, I am not coming. I am a man of freedom -- wherever I want to go, I go. Nobody can force me, bribe me, threaten me. And you are trying everything: bribing me, persuading me, and with the naked sword threatening me."


Alexander said, "Then the second alternative, is I will cut off your head." The Sannyasin laughed again. He said, "That you can do, because that does not matter: it will not touch my blissfulness at all. You can cut off my head, you can cut my body into as many pieces as you want, but you will not be able to touch my blissfulness, my ecstasy. That is beyond your reach. If it is your joy and if I can be of any help, I am ready: cut off my head."


Alexander in his notes writes, "There have been only two times in my life when I felt really inferior. Here was a man who says, 'You cannot touch my blissfulness, nor can you kill my spirit. You can destroy this house, I will find another -- a fresher one, a newer one."'


Blissfulness is totally different from pleasure. Pleasure is of the body, joy is of the mind; bliss is of the soul. Listening to beautiful music you feel joy. Seeing beautiful architecture, sculpture, a painting, you feel joy. Seeing the Taj Mahal, listening to Mozart, you feel joy -- that is of the mind.
Bliss is absolutely beyond both body and mind.


My teaching is not for pleasure, but for blissfulness. I am not against pleasure, remember. I am not against joy, remember. Have as much pleasure as you can, but don't forget this is only the beginning. You have to go far. Unless you reach blissfulness, you have not arrived.
QUESTION: YOU SAY THAT YOU KNOW YOURSELF. NOW, IMAGINE LYING DOWN ON A COUCH AND THE FREUDIAN ANALYST ASKS YOU THE FARTHERMOST REMEMBRANCE YOU HAVE OF YOURSELF. WHICH ONE WILL IT BE?


ANSWER: In the first place, I will put the Freudian on the couch! No Freudian can put me on the couch. What do they know? Even Freud knows nothing of any importance. He is full of fear, is afraid of ghosts, is afraid of death -- so much that even the mention of death and he goes into a fit, his mouth starts foaming. This is your founder of psychoanalysis! These idiots... you think they know anything? If I meet Freud I will put him on the couch. He needs analysis. Do you know that he was not analyzed, ever? And many of his very close friends wanted to analyze him, but he refused. What is the fear? The founder of psychoanalysis should be available to his own methodology. The fear is that he is just as psychologically split, schizophrenic, full of fear, full of repression. He does not want, before his colleagues and disciples, to expose himself. He never told a single dream of his own. He is talking about others' dreams, interpreting their dreams -- what about his own dreams? He should begin with his own dreams.
It is very easy to interpret anybody's dream.


For example, if you are in your dream flying in the sky.... Many people have dreams of flying -- Sigmund Freud will say that means ambition, that you are very ambitious. What about Freud, if he has the dream of flying? Then his disciples, friends and colleagues and students will interpret it: "You are very ambitious" -- and he wants to pretend that he has gone beyond ambitions. He was one of the most ambitious people in the world, very afraid of anybody who was more intelligent than him.


That's why many people left him who were really more intelligent than him. Adler left him for the simple reason that he had found a better explanation for dreams. He said there are a few dreams which are sexual, but all dreams are not sexual, because all men's desires are not sexual. And man goes on repressing all his desires, so his dreams cannot be only sexually interpreted. This is absolutely rational. He left the group and Freud condemned him, said that he betrayed him.


But was it a religion? What is the meaning of betrayal? Science knows no betrayal. You have to argue with Adler, prove your thesis amongst your colleagues. And whoever comes closer to truth  -- it doesn't matter who is coming closer -- has to be accepted. But no, Freud was very dictatorial: he knows the truth.


This is something which comes as a heritage with every Jew. From Moses to all the prophets, to John the Baptist, to Jesus, to Sigmund Freud, to Karl Marx, the same trend and the same attitude: "We are the only possessors of truth, it is our monopoly. We are the chosen people of God". These are different versions of the same theme.


Moses has contaminated the Jewish mind so much that even people like Marx, who deny religion, are unaware completely that they are still in the hands of Moses.


Sigmund Freud was afraid of Jung because he was just next to him, and people had started talking about Jung, saying that he is going to be the successor. That made Freud very much afraid -- successor? Jung was not agreeing with all his theories, hypotheses, and if he becomes the successor -- he was young, Freud was getting old -- he will destroy the whole of psychoanalysis and the movement. And it is not only a movement, it is a question of a Jewish business firm.


Freud expelled Carl Gustav Jung from the movement while he was alive, so nobody could in any way change anything. His word was holy. This is not a scientific attitude. And he certainly created one of the biggest businesses of the century. But Jews are known to do this.


Jesus created the biggest business of the whole history. Jews cannot forgive themselves. They unnecessarily crucified this poor carpenter's son. They should have used him, and right now rather than there being millions and millions of Christians, there would have been millions and millions of Jews. Jesus created the biggest religious establishment. Sigmund Freud did the same, Marx did the same. Jewishness has something in it: the art of creating established businesses. So no psychoanalyst has the guts even to face me. If you have anybody, you can bring him.
QUESTION: WHAT ABOUT THE FARTHEST REMEMBRANCE YOU HAVE OF YOURSELF?


ANSWER: That is very difficult, because I remember even my past lives. You mean this life?
QUESTION: ANY REMEMBRANCE?


ANSWER: But I remember many past lives! One thing is certain: even in my past lives, I remember perfectly well, I have never eaten spaghetti. That much is certain.
QUESTION: I FEEL THAT AN ITALIAN WILL ALWAYS PROJECT IN YOU A FATHER FIGURE. AND ALSO FOR GERMANS YOU WILL BE ALWAYS PROJECTED AS A LEADER. AND IF I LOOK AT A FRENCH LADY, SHE CAN SEE IN YOU A BEAUTIFUL MAN TO LIE DOWN WITH. WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT YOU AS A SIMPLE HUMAN BEING? AND WHY IS THERE ALL THIS PROJECTION HAPPENING.


ANSWER: Only a simple human being can see me as a simple human being -- and it is very difficult to find simple human beings. Everybody has some projection. To be simple means: without projections, without conditionings, just a clarity, a silence, an understanding. But you are right, different people will see different things in me.


I am just a mirror. You will see your own face, you will see your own desire. And if I don't fulfill it, you will be angry at me. I receive many angry letters from sannyasins, and I simply laugh at their stupidity.


They first project. I have never agreed to their projection, they have never even told me their projection. And when I don't fulfill, and don't act according to their expectation, then they simply freak out, they are angry. But what can I do? So many people... if I start fulfilling everybody's projection and everybody's expectation, then life will be impossible for me. And why in the first place should I fulfill anybody's expectation?


My whole effort here is that you drop all projections, and you be simple, just the way I am simple. Just two mirrors facing each other -- nothing is reflected. And that state when two mirrors face each other and nothing is reflected, I call friendship.


When I said this morning that my people are my friends, they should understand it is not an easy job. To be a friend is one of the most arduous challenges.


And from now on, sannyasins are not going to be called Rajneeshees. They are going to be called only friends of Rajneesh. And they have to understand the meaning of being friends. It means no projection, no expectation.


Neither I am responsible for you, nor are you responsible for me. I love you because I have too much to give; you love me because you are overflowing with love. There is no obligation on anyone's part.


To be a follower is very easy. You dump your whole responsibility on the leader, on the father figure, on the messiah, the savior, the prophet. It is human beings themselves who have allowed all kinds of exploitation. You want somebody else to save you. That is not right. If you have fallen into a ditch, try to get out of it -- don't wait for the savior to come; the savior never comes. The savior is like tomorrow, which never comes; he is always coming, coming, coming, but never comes. And you will die in the ditch, waiting -- waiting for Godot.


I want you to be absolutely free in spirit. I am not anybody's father figure, so you cannot depend on me. And I am not your leader, so you cannot say one day, "You have misled us." It was your joy to come or not to come. You enjoyed coming with me, that was your joy.


I allowed you to come with me, that was my joy. I had never said that we are going to achieve something, I never promised anything, and you don't have any reason to be angry. What a strange thing it is that for thirty years I have been telling people -- and there are many sannyasins who have been for fifteen years with me, or even more, but deep down still some kind of expectation continues, and that is your dependence.


And if I go against your hidden expectation immediately you explode. You start feeling shaky, your trust is lost, I simply wonder.... I had never asked you in to be with me the first place.


Just be a friend, with no strings attached. Is it not possible just to be friends, allowing the other his own being, his own way, his own life? Never trespassing -- because that is the meaning of friendship, not to trespass. So it is true that a French woman will think just the way a French woman is conditioned to think. The German will think just the way the German is conditioned to think.


But I am going to destroy all your conditionings: French, Italian, German, English, Dutch, whatever -- it doesn't matter: my function is to deprogram you. Only then can you be again as simple and innocent as a child. And out of that innocence is beauty, grandeur, love, fragrance.
QUESTION: THERE IS A RUMOR THAT YOU'RE GOING AWAY FROM HERE. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROJECTS FOR THE FUTURE?


ANSWER: I have no future, and future does not exist. Those who have future don't have the present. You can't have both. If you want to have the present -- which is the only reality -- then forget all about future. Future is destructive of the present. You think of the future, you project on the future; meanwhile the present is slipping by.


That which is real you are losing for something which is not real. And remember whenever what you call future comes it will come as the present, never as the future.


And your mind by and by becomes habituated to projecting into the future. Future comes, but it comes as the present, and in the present you don't have any interest; your whole interest is in the future.


So always the future comes in the present and slips out of your hands and you go on thinking about the future. Future never comes. One day death comes. There are many people who realize only at the moment of death that they were alive, but they could not manage to live it -- and now there is no future.
QUESTION: IN THE PRESENT ARE YOU STAYING HERE?


ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: HOW LONG IS THIS PRESENT?


ANSWER: As long as possible. I don't know about the next moment. You just forget the future and come to the present!
QUESTION: YOU LIVE SURROUNDED BY MANY GADGETS WHICH A WESTERN EYES DON'T CONSIDER SPIRITUAL THINGS. AND THE QUESTION IS, WHY DO YOU NEED THEM?


ANSWER: What the Western people consider as spiritual -- have I to fulfill their considerations? I am not born to fulfill anybody's expectations, either Western or Eastern. I am living my life. Who are they to decide about me? I don't care a bit about them, why should they waste their time about me?


I am a contemporary man, I am not going to live five thousand year behind the times. I am going to use the latest gadget possible, and I don't see that it disturbs my spirituality. On the contrary, it helps; it makes my spirituality contemporary, fresh, new. The people who are worried are the people who have created a split between materialism and spiritualism. They think that sitting on a beautiful, comfortable chair you cannot be meditative. They are simple idiots. What is the problem? Sitting on a comfortable chair is really helpful for meditation. The Indian way is to sit in a lotus posture, putting your feet in such a tortuous way that I don't think you can meditate; you are continuously worried about your feet!
QUESTION: LIKE THOSE PEOPLE THERE? (INDICATING THE GROUP IN FRONT OF BHAGWAN)


ANSWER: They are enjoying; and nobody is sitting in the lotus posture. You don't know the lotus posture. Does anybody here know it? It means to sit -- yes, that is the lotus posture... not perfect! Do you think that kind of torture is going to help spirituality?
QUESTION: NO. SO THERE IS AN ECONOMIC IDEA HIDDEN BEHIND THE EXPERIMENT YOU ARE DOING HERE? LIKE PEOPLE COME, THEY INVEST EVERYTHING IN THE COMMUNE, THEY WORK ALL THE DAY; THERE IS NO MONEY GOING AROUND INSIDE THE COMMUNE AND IT'S QUITE DIFFICULT FOR THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE WHO ARE EARNING MONEY THEMSELVES TO UNDERSTAND THIS IDEA OF ECONOMY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT?


ANSWER: It is very simple, and they will have to understand it sooner or later. One thing: currency notes should be banned, should be made illegal. In fact they should have been illegal long before now, because a currency note moves in so many hands. Sick people, people who have tuberculosis, people who have infectious diseases -- those currency notes are moving in all these people's hands.


Now, people even have AIDS. And in India I have seen -- I don't know what people in other countries do -- when they are counting large numbers of notes, they use their saliva to count the notes with a thick bundle they use saliva so that only one note comes out, not two notes or calculation is wrong.


With AIDS, people counting notes with saliva is dangerous. They can infect people who are absolutely innocent, who are not homosexual, who have never committed any kind of perversion, but who can suffer through AIDS. So the simple thing is the currency card. Every city should have currency cards, so you keep your own currency cards.


And because of the computer, it has become so simple that there is no need for currency notes. This has to be done if AIDS is to be prevented. People have to be taught not to use saliva when they put a stamp on an envelope; or some other kind of envelopes have to be developed which do not need saliva. Otherwise people are simply just habitually licking them -- but that saliva is carrying poison.


Currency cards are the only way to prevent this unnecessary spread of disease not only of AIDS but of many other diseases. And the world sooner or later is going to be converted into communes. We are the pioneers, we have heralded a new age.


Families are really out of date. Just think: we are five thousand people here. The average family, we can suppose consists of five people. That means one thousand families would be living here. Then one thousand families have to cook food, one thousand families have to think about cleaning the houses, one thousand families have to think about washing their clothes. One thousand families have to think about their children, sending them to the school, bringing them back home, all kind of things. They have to think of employment -- and even in America, there are millions who are unemployed, what to say about poor countries?


Almost half of India is unemployed. Half of India means four hundred million people have no jobs. How long can they survive? And these are the people who then finally turn into criminals. You are forcing them to be criminals, and then you will be punishing them for their crime. This is very strange. Not much intelligence is needed -- if you keep four hundred million people unemployed, how are they going to feed their families, their children, their old parents? Then they will have to do something: smuggle things from outside the country, steal, sell drugs, manufacture alcohol, do any kind of thing which is not legal. And then they are caught and punished without any consideration of what is going to happen to their children. I don't think this is justice.


A person is caught because he was selling dope; he goes into jail. Now what about his children, what about his wife, what about his old parents who are sick, need medicine, need care? The court is responsible for taking care of all these people -- but nobody even bothers. You have not punished one person, you have punished many people; and those people will turn into thieves. Those children cannot be educated, they cannot pay the fee, they cannot purchase books. In fact there is no food in the house -- what is the point of purchasing books and going to the school? They will start stealing from the very beginning, or begging, or doing something which is not good. Girls will become prostitutes -- there is no other way.


So your whole legal system is creating all kinds of illegal things in the world. Your law is not protecting the society but is creating criminality.My suggestion is, why one thousand families. That is unnecessary wastage. Here we have one kitchen which can be managed by a few people. There is no need for one hundred or one thousand kitchens, one thousand women unnecessarily engaged. In their life they will not be able to read good literature, listen to music, meditate, sing, dance. There is no possibility -- they are taking care of children and thinking of tomorrow's bread. There is no need for this.


In a commune we have reduced the kitchens to one kitchen. Everybody is free -- just a few people prepare food. And then you can have better food, because all women are not great cooks. So why, when you can have the best cooks, why eat food prepared by a wife who is a third-rate cook? You have to eat it, and you have to praise it, and you have to say, "Great! I have never tasted such delicious dishes before."


All the clothes of the commune can be taken care of by one laundry; the experts can take care. And in the same way, cleaning can be taken care of by a few people. And the remaining people do not have to search for jobs; the commune provides them. All kinds of jobs are there: farming is there, gardening is there, vegetable greenhouses are there. Doctors can go to the medical facility, legal experts can go to the legal association, professors can go to the university, teachers can go to the school. Children can be taken care of in the hostel. All women need not worry about children. They can be loving to them, they can go to see them, they can have once in a while the children with them. But the children are taken care of by the commune.


The family has to be replaced by the commune. So big cities should be divided into communes. For example, a city which is very big can be divided into ten communes, twenty communes, and they take care of the whole thing. And they are the sole masters of their commune. They should put everything that they can into the commune, and the commune will take care of them. This way we can create more wealth, more enjoyment, more nourishment, caring, for the patients, for the old, for the sick.


And money is no longer a problem -- money does not exist. This is a simple concept of a better society. And slowly, slowly, the whole world should be changed into communes. There is no need for nations, no need for states. Each commune should be an independent commune. No need for any hierarchy and bureaucracy; every commune should decide for itself. So we can dissolve nations and families. These are the two greatest diseases which we have to get rid of -- and the commune is the medicine.
QUESTION: YOU HAVE IN ITALY THREE COMMUNES. TWO OF THEM HAVE BEEN CLOSED, AND OTHER ONE IS REDUCED NOW TO TWENTY-SIX PEOPLE. THE REASON WAS GIVEN BY SHEELA THAT ITALY IS A THIRD-WORLD COUNTRY, ECONOMICALLY. SO IT MEANS ITALY DOESN'T FIT YOUR VISION OF COMMUNES?


ANSWER: No, it was just Sheela's idea. It won't be so now. Italy will have its own commune, so tell Italian sannyasins that they should start commune. At least two communes in Italy are absolutely necessary, and then we can have more. The problem is that you have to teach Italian friends that their communes fail because they are lazy. And rather than taking responsibility, they become a burden on the commune. German communes are flourishing, earning money, living comfortably, for the simple reason that people are not lazy. So what has been done -- I had suggested that those Italian communes were never going well and there were fights. And the money is not there, and every month the leader is changing, because the one who was taking care is tired, people don't listen. I have said to send Italian commune sannyasins to learn how to work, to German communes. So each German commune can absorb at least twenty Italian sannyasins. They just have to get the idea how things work, and once they get the idea they are as intelligent as anybody else. It is just that their national heritage is of laziness, so they have to understand that nobody is going to babysit them, they will have to take their own responsibility.


And if German communes can function well -- not only can they provide comfort for themselves, but they are capable to help other communes which are in debt -- I don't see why in Italy it cannot happen. So you just send the message that all sannyasins first should move to German communes or Dutch communes -- just for a learning period of two months, three months to see how things are working -- then go back and start planning. There is no problem in it.


For example, one commune has enough land... thirty sannyasins are there, but just dependent on one woman sannyasin who has given the land. Now she has to provide food and clothes also, so she is getting fed up. That is not the idea of a commune, that "I have given you the whole land -- you can cultivate it, you can create -- you don't need to do anything. I have to take care about your food, about your clothes, and about your other needs."


That commune, Pratiti's commune, is perfectly good, and she wants somebody to take charge, so that she is free; she is willing to give the whole property to the commune. So just tell Pratiti, "We will take care." And if those lazy people are not willing to go, then tell them to leave the commune, to live on their own. Accept only people who are going to work -- because "unless you work, who is going to provide all your necessities?" And I have so many beautiful Italian people who love me that it is just a question of a little understanding. The whole Italian economy may be going down; that does not matter. Our communes can remain high, can be more economically stable, and can prove to other people that "you are unnecessarily getting into a depressive economy. If we can manage, you can also manage." Italy will have its communes, but something has to be taught to them. The people are good, loving, but lazy.
QUESTION: YOU SPOKE A LOT ABOUT THE MISSIONARY POSITION IN MAKING LOVE, AND ALSO ABOUT FRENCH KISSING, WHICH ARE THE ONLY TWO THINGS THE ITALIAN KNOWS ABOUT MAKING LOVE. SINCE YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, YOU CAN GIVE SOME ADVICE ALSO IN THIS DIRECTION TO ITALIANS.


ANSWER: You don't know much! First, instead of kissing start rubbing noses -- which is more hygienic and really more fun. You both will start laughing. In kissing only one difficulty is, you cannot laugh. In this way both things are possible: you can rub noses and you can laugh too, at the same time. AIDS is avoided and the experience becomes richer. Noses are very sensitive parts.


Eskimos for their whole history have never kissed, kissing does not exist among Eskimos. It does not exist in a few tribes in the Himalayas too. And when the first time they saw Christian missionaries kissing, they could not believe that "these people have come to teach us, religion. They don't even know how to make love!" This is so disgusting to Eskimos -- and if you think impartially you will agree with them. Kissing someone is mixing saliva with the other, exploring each other's mouth with your tongue. Just think of it and you will feel like vomiting. What are you doing? This is love? This is not love. Just traditionally because people have been doing it, you go on doing it.
QUESTION: YOU TALK OUT OF EXPERIENCE OF THINGS?


ANSWER: Yes. Everything I say, I say on my own authority, my experience.
QUESTION: IN THESE DAYS THERE IS A PUBLIC OPINION WHICH IS FOLLOWING YOU DAY AFTER DAY WITH BIG HEADLINES, NEW ONES EVERY DAY. AND MANY ARE GETTING THE IDEA THAT THE STORY IS BUILT-UP, EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING. HOW MUCH OF THIS STORY IS ADVERTISING?


ANSWER: Not anything. Right now everything is absolutely true. There is no need of advertising. We don't need any advertising, I have never needed any advertising. I am so unpredictable that I can make any statement which becomes immediately news.
QUESTION: THIS IS TRUE!


ANSWER: There is no trouble in it. And I use every media. If television is available and radio is available and newspapers are available, then what is the need? Jesus said to his disciples, "Go on top of your houses and shout loudly to spread the word, the message." I will not say that to my people unnecessarily. Going on top of your house... and how much can you shout? And here for at least twenty miles there is nobody around. Who is going to hear you? Only sannyasins who are hugging somebody on the street. They will simply say, "Shut up! Don't disturb us. You go somewhere else to spread the word -- we are already practicing it." There is no need.


We have all the media, and I'm going to use it fully. Whenever I do anything, I do it fully. I squeeze the last drop out of everything, there is no problem in it. And if politicians can use the media, if businesses can use the media -- if all kinds of lying advertisements are on the media -- then why should truth remain behind? It has to come into the marketplace. Its presence only will be enough for many lies to die.


If you write a book, somebody has to purchase it, first; secondly, he has to read it. The book has become out of date. If the person can see it on the television, without purchasing a book and without reading it.... and remember always, seeing reaches deeper in you than reading.


Reading is only words; seeing has a totally different effect, it is almost life -- as if you are hearing me. My gestures will be missed in the book. My silent pauses will not be there in the book, nor my eyes, which say so much you may put the same sentence in the book, but it has lost almost eighty percent of its meaning, because that eighty percent was not in the sentence, but in things around it: the eyes, the hands, the personality, the man, the face; his emphasis, his way of saying a thing, his voice, his authority, which penetrates the heart.


The coming days are the days of television. And television makes me available to the whole world. Buddha had to travel for forty-two years continuously, and then too he could not go out of his state, Bihar. Not even all over India; in forty-two years he could manage to cover only one state. India consists now of thirty states, and at that time, it was double what it is now. Sixty states -- and he covered only one state. I can manage sitting in my chair to cover the whole world. And it is not long, soon scientists have to come up with a three-dimensional television. This television is not yet enough, it is flat. Once it becomes three dimensional -- which is not too big a problem -- then whether you are listening to me directly or listening on the television screen will make no difference, because both will be three dimensional.
QUESTION: DO YOU THINK HISTORY WILL BE DIVIDED INTO BEFORE AND AFTER BHAGWAN?


ANSWER: There is no need, there is no need. You divided it after Jesus -- let it remain divided with Jesus.
QUESTION: THE POPE IS WORRIED ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW.


ANSWER: He may be worried -- keep him worried. But there is no need. But if my people decide, then it is their problem. I am not preventing either, I am simply provoking.
QUESTION: THERE WAS A STATEMENT ABOUT AIDS WHICH THE POPE DIDN'T LIKE SO MUCH, WHEN YOU SAID THE VATICAN SHOULD BECOME AN AIDS RESORT.


ANSWER: Why should he like it? He is responsible, and all the popes before him are responsible. It should be made clear to him that if you have any compassion, change the Vatican into an AIDS camp. Make celibacy a sin, and let all your monks be married to the nuns. And for you we have chosen Mother Teresa.
QUESTION: THIS CAN MAKE THE HEADLINES OF THE VATICAN! WHEN YOU SIT IN THE CHAIR YOU TRANSCEND ANY SEXUAL DEFINITION. BUT WHEN YOU DANCE WITH A FEMALE DISCIPLE, YOU ARE REAL MACAO (MACHO?)-LOOKING. WHY SUCH A DIFFERENCE?


ANSWER: You think that even while dancing I should look as if I am sitting in the chair? Or vice versa -- sitting in the chair I should look as if I am dancing? The change is bound to be there -- sitting in the chair is a different posture, dancing is a different posture, eating at my table is a different posture. They have to be different. They simply show that man is not linear, that man is multi-dimensional. Dancing with a woman, certainly I have to be respectful to a woman. I am not a homosexual.
QUESTION: DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF A LATIN LOVER?


ANSWER: Yes, certainly. I am a lover, and every gesture of mine shows that I am a lover. I love every beautiful thing in the world, and that is my teaching to my people: love everything beautiful in the world. Okay? Can we dance now?
			

> [!info]
> Copyright 1964-1990 Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)
>