---
section: Library
booktitle: "From Misery to Enlightenment"
booktype: "Discourses"
bookcode: "MISERY"
dategiven: "09 February 1985 pm"
place: " in Lao Tzu Grove"
chapternum: "Chapter #12"
chaptertitle: "God: an idea whose time has come -- and gone"
acode: "8502095"
shorttitle: "MISERY12"
audio: "Yes"
video: "Yes"
esttime: "111mins"
displaytitle: "From Misery to Enlightenment: Chapter #12"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->
<p class="question">OSHO,
ARE YOU AGAINST GOD AND JESUS CHRIST TOO? IT FREAKS ME OUT.</p>


IT freaks me out too. How I can be against God, who does not exist at all? To be for or to be against, one thing is absolutely necessary, the existence of God.


There are fanatic theists in the world, and similarly fanatic atheists too. Those who believe that God exists, their fanaticism can be forgiven. But those who think that God does not exist, their fanaticism is unforgivable. They should not bother about God at all. I don't bother a bit.


But there is a human weakness, the weakness of categorizing: if you are not for, then you are against. And the mind functions in polarities, it does not allow the middle way. This is something significant to understand, that the mind can exist only at the extremes. The farther away you go from the middle point, the more you become a mind. The closer you come to the middle point, the more your mind starts disappearing


When you are exactly at the middle, there is no mind at all. That's why Buddha called his path majjhim nikai 'the middle path'. He chose really a very profound name, the middle path -- avoiding both the extremes. But mind feels uneasy.... With any extreme it is perfectly at ease.


So if I say there is no God you naturally start inferring that I am against God, but you have not thought of a simple thing -- that if there is no God, how can I be against Him? The people who are for God may turn against Him. But you can depend on me: I cannot turn against Him because to be against I would have to invent Him first.


Friedrich Nietzsche says, "God is dead." I cannot even say that. He thinks he is saying something tremendously anti-God, anti-religion, anti-Christianity, antiChrist. This is not so. To say that God is dead implies that He was there, alive. You have accepted the existence of God -- if not in the present, then in the past -- and it is going to be very difficult to prove how the existent God died. Nietzsche never argued further and the theists are not capable of raising significant questions.


The whole of western Christianity was shocked by the statement that God is dead. They were angry, they would have liked to kill Friedrich Nietzsche. But nobody asked him, 4You have accepted the primary existence of God, now you have to explain how He died And if He was God, how could He die?" And particularly to ask Nietzsche... because Nietzsche believes in the recurrence of life, that life continues. He is the only Western philosopher who believes in the Eastern idea of reincarnation.


If God is dead, He must be born again. That is a simple corollary of his own philosophy. If man dies and is born then why be so unfavorable to God? At least give Him as much as you give to ordinary human beings, to animals, to birds -- to all life.


Either God has never been there or will always be there. Life can change its forms but can never become death. That, Nietzsche accepted. And no Christian bothered him, raised the question, argued with him.


I cannot say God is dead. I think Nietzsche is not really against God. He is against the priesthood, against Christianity particularly, against Jesus. But God is the foundation of all these, so he has to hit God to demolish the whole edifice of the only begotten son, the messiah, the pope, the church, and the whole ugly history of Christianity. Without God it all becomes absurd. That s the reason he says God is dead, but deep down he knows God is.
My situation is totally different.
I am not against God.
I have been searching and seeking Him everywhere.
And this is my finding -- that He is not anywhere.


I have looked in, I have looked out; I have done everything that is possible to be done. There is no God. This is a simple statement of fact, with no anger, with no enmity. What can I do if He does not exist? It is not my fault.


But man's mind wants some extreme position. It is worth understanding.
Why does man's mind want some extreme position?


Either you have to be theist or atheist; either you have to be for or against. It does not allow you a third alternative. The reason is simple: the third alternative becomes the death of the mind. Mind lives on extremism; that is its very nourishment.


Exactly in the middle, where two polarities dissolve and contradictions meet, mind simply goes out of function. The mind cannot conceive how contradictions can meet, how polarities can be one. But in existence they are meeting, they are one.


Have you seen life and death separate? It is your mind that makes the categories and words separate But look into existence -- it is life turning into death death turning into life. There is no division, they are part of one whole. It is the mind that has created the idea of beauty and ugliness.


But in existence... do you think that if all human minds for a moment disappeared from the earth -- would there be beauty in anything, ugliness in anything? Would the rose still be beautiful? No, as the mind is not there, there is nobody to judge and beauty and ugliness are mental judgments.


The rose will be there, just as the thorn will be there, but there will be no evaluation because the evaluator is not there. They will both exist without any hierarchy. The rose will not be higher than the thorn. The flower of the marigold will not be a poor flower and the rose, a rich flower; they will be on the same plane.


All hierarchy is created by the mind: the lower, the higher, for and against.


Think in another way: for a moment, let the mind be there but drop judgment -- which is a little more difficult. You can visualize a state where all minds have disappeared and certainly you can see there is no possibility of anything being ugly, beautiful. Things will be there, just themselves, with no comparison, no judgment, no labeling.


Now try the other, which is a little more difficult. Let the mind be there -- so all the minds are there but nobody is judging -- for one hour, no judgment. Can beauty be there, can ugliness be there? Can something be moral and something immoral? Can there be a sinner and a saint?


For that one hour, all these categories will disappear and you will have, for the first time, a real contact with reality as it is, not as projected by you, manufactured by your mind. Your mind is continuously manufacturing reality; otherwise, who is a saint and who is a sinner?


Just now I read the news that in England a vicar has died of AIDS. Now it is not right for saints to do this, priests to do this! And he has created a trouble. All the old ladies are phoning in inquiring about it, because in Christianity, the vicar drinks the wine as the blood of Christ and then, from the same cup, everybody else drinks -- particularly the old ladies. Because who else goes to these vicars? -- you think young girls? They have many other things to do. These old ladies have done everything and found nothing; now they are trying God.


Now the old ladies are worried that they may have contracted AIDS from the vicar. Now it is time that Christians should stop this stupidity of passing the bread and the wine, because the saliva of the priest, the vicar, the cardinal may be carrying AIDS.


Now this is something about which the polack pope should declare: "From now on this is a sin, to drink the blood of Jesus...." In fact it was a sin from the very beginning. Just an ugly idea: drinking the blood of Jesus, eating his flesh. That was okay up to now, but now... and the priest has to start the game.


The pope is involved in things which have nothing to do with him -- this is. Now I am giving him a problem which faces him, and if he has the courage then he should declare that this practice is immoral. Then all the popes up to now have been doing immoral things; even Jesus was doing immoral things.


AIDS may not be a new disease, it may be only a late discovery. It may have been happening before, because it has no symptoms. It is a strange kind of disease, without symptoms. To call it a disease is not right -- it is really a slow death, a very slow death. So you cannot find symptoms. You can only watch a man's life: if he is losing his resistance to diseases then he has AIDS.


This is a very complicated phenomenon. If he is losing resistance to other sicknesses then he has AIDS Thus only a long observation can make it certain that you have AIDS: You go on getting infections, and to cure any infection becomes more and more difficult and slowly you find your life-force falling lower and lower, and for no particular reason you start losing well-being. You cannot pinpoint that this is the reason why you are losing your well-being -- just suddenly you don't feel okay. Nothing is wrong, but your life no longer has the same force.


This kind of thing may have always existed but to detect it was not possible before -- only now, and even now it is in a great confusion. But the confusion will be cleared up. Perhaps the cultures where kissing is thought to be unhygienic have a far more advanced idea... and these are primitive people.


Perhaps the brahmins in India, Jainas in India have a better idea in reference to AIDS, because there this is not their practice, that you drink from the same cup; that is thought to be ugly. And to make it a religious thing is going too far. Sooner or later the pope will have to be forced to prevent this practice.


What I was saying was this, that it is very difficult to say who is a sinner and who is a saint. Now, this vicar was a saint up to now. The fool should have chosen to die a little earlier; just one or two years earlier and he would have remained a saint. But now, what is going to be the situation?


It is proved that he was a homosexual, it is proved that he was not a celibate, it is proved that he was indulging in perverted kinds of sexualities. If he had died two years earlier he would have been in heaven. Now ask Lord Jesus Christ where his vicar goes. And with this vicar many more will soon be discovered all around the earth, because that is one of the most dangerous things about AlDS -- that through saliva it can be given to anybody.


Perhaps the French will prove the highest, the greatest... because they have discovered great kisses. And the French must have given AIDS to many more people than anybody else in the world. Now, these French people should be stopped. It is a question of world health, life, future. These idiots should be told, "Stop all this nonsense. Find out some better ways of loving" -- and there are....


In some islands near Japan lovers rub noses. That's perfectly healthy and hygienic, and it gives you the same joy. What joy are you getting in kissing? You think you are gaining something? Rubbing noses is more clean -- that seems to be far better.


The Indian sex scripture, the first sex scripture in the world, Maharishi Vatsyayana's KAMA SUTRAS, suggests all kinds of things which can become prevalent in the world. For example: lovers should play with each other's ear lobes. That's perfectly hygienic; and ear lobes are very erotic. Try to discover it; just play with ear lobes. It may look a little dry -- it is dry cleaning -- but at least you can avoid AIDS.


Man's mind is easily ready for any extreme because the extreme is its life-force. When two extremes meet, they cancel each other and they leave a vacuum. That's the meaning of the middle way: let the extremes come to a point where they cancel each other and suddenly you are left neither atheist nor theist. Those questions become irrelevant. But the mind is not ready to drop either in religion, in philosophy, or even in science.


Vivek just gave me a documentary film on the history of mathematics. The whole history of mathematics can be said to be the whole problem of the human mind. For two thousand years or more in the West and for five to ten thousand years in the East, mathematicians have been trying to find the ultimate science.


One thing is certain in their eyes, that only mathematics can become the ultimate science, for the simple reason that there are no mathematical things around you. It is a pure science. You don't see mathematical objects: this is a mathematical chair and that is a mathematical house.


Mathematics is just a pure ideological game. It consists not of things but ideas. And because ideas are properties of your mind, you can refine them to their ultimate purity. So it has been an accepted thing that mathematics can become the purest science possible. But there have been problems. Those mathematicians were not aware that your mind itself is the problem, and the mind is going to create a science which will have no problems, no contradictions, no paradoxes.


You can play the game. You can make a great edifice but whenever you look at the base, you will know that at the very base the ultimate problem remains unsolved. For example, Euclid's geometry.... I could not go much into it for the simple reason that I could not agree with the basic hypotheses.


My teacher of geometry simply told me, "Your problem has nothing to do with me. Find Euclid -- get out of the class. Find Euclid and settle things with him. I am a poor teacher, I just get my salary; I have nothing to do with his fundamental axioms. Whatever is written in the book, I teach. I am not interested at all whether his fundamental hypotheses are right or wrong. You get out.


He wouldn't allow me in the class. I said, "But how can you go on teaching year after year knowing that the basic points are absurd?"


He said, "I never knew; it is you who is hammering on my mind that they are absurd. I have never bothered; I am not a scientist nor a mathematician, just a poor teacher. And I never wanted to be a teacher, I wanted to be an inspector, but they didn't choose me. I tried to be an inspector, but they didn't choose me. I tried other jobs; everywhere no vacancy. It is just out of compulsion that I am a teacher here.


"Don't torture me. Your problem is with Euclid -- don't bring me in. If you want to read what is written in the book, I am ready. But if you tell me that the fundamentals are wrong...."


I said, "I cannot go on unless I am certain about the base, because this is dangerous: the foundation of the house is missing and you tell me to go on up in a skyscraper. I cannot move a single inch. First I have to be certain about the foundation, whether the foundation is there which can support this skyscraper. You are going to fall -- that is your business -- but I am not going to fall with you. If you want to commit suicide, do it."


He said, "This is strange! With Euclid, nobody commits suicide. What are you talking about?"


I said, "I am talking about exactly what I said. It is suicide. Not a single hypothesis of Euclid's is explainable."


And still for two thousand years Euclid has been the foundation, not only of geometry but of all other sciences, because he has to be used in other sciences too. He says about a line, its definition, that it has only length -- only length.


I asked my teacher, "Draw a line which has only length. The moment you draw it, it will also have some breadth, howsoever tiny." And a point, according to Euclid, has no length, no breadth. I said, "Make a point which has no length and no breadth. And the same Euclid says a line consists of points -- one point after another point, in a row. Now, a line has only length the point has no length, no breadth -- then how can the line have length? because it has only points standing in a queue. From where does the length appear?"


He just folded his hands to me and said, "Simply go from here. I have told you that I am just a poor teacher and you are beyond me."


I said, "This is not the answer. You can simply accept that these axioms are not explainable."


But the mind has some difficulty in accepting the idea that something is there which is not explainable. Mind has a very mad urge for everything to be explained... if not explained, then at least explained away. Anything that remains a puzzle, a paradox, goes on troubling your mind.


The whole history of philosophy, religion, science, mathematics, has the same root, the same mind -- the same itch. You may scratch yourself one way, somebody else may do it differently, but the itch has to be understood. The itch is the belief that existence is not a mystery: mind can only feel at home if somehow existence is demystified.


Religion has done it by creating God, the Holy Ghost, the only begotten son; different religions have created different things. These are their ways to cover up a hole which is uncoverable; whatever you do the hole is there. In fact the more you cover it, the more emphatically it is there. Your very effort to cover it shows your fear that somebody is going to see the hole.


It used to happen in my childhood every day because I love to climb the trees: the higher the tree, the greater the joy. And naturally I fell many times from the trees; I still carry on my legs and knees and everywhere, scratches. Because I was continually climbing the trees and falling, every day my clothes were torn, and my mother would say, "Don't go out with that hole in your clothes. Let me do a little patchwork."
I said, "No, no patchwork."


She said, "But people will see that you are the son of the best cloth merchant in the town, that you are always roaming around the whole town with torn clothes; and nobody takes care."


I said, "If you patch it then it becomes ugly. Right now anybody can see it is fresh. I did not come out of the house with this hole. This is fresh, I have just fallen from a tree. But with your patchwork... this is an old thing that I have been hiding.


"Your patchwork will make me look poor, my torn shirt simply makes me look courageous. Don't be worried about it. And anybody telling me about it I can challenge, 'You can come with me up that tree, and if you can manage without falling then only have you any right to say anything.' "


And there are a few trees in India which are very soft, easily breakable. One is a jamun tree. Jamun is a very sweet fruit, but the tree goes very high and is very weak; its branches can break any time. And unless you go higher you don't get the best quality of fruit because the lower ones have been taken by lower quality people already -- those who could dare to go up only to ten feet.


If you have courage to go to thirty feet, then you will get real juicy ones. They are preserved for those who have courage. But from there, a fall is almost certain. You cannot do anything about it, it is not in your power. Just a little strong wind.... You cannot get down very quickly; the whole branch breaks away from the tree, and before you can do anything you are already on the ground.


But my mother could never understand my idea. I tried to explain to her, "It is very simple. If you have not mended my shirt, it simply means the tear is fresh; just now it has happened. But mended -- that certainly shows it is not fresh. You have come from home with a mended shirt. It stands out more then, and I don't want to be thought so poor."


She said, "I cannot understand what kind of mind you have got, because everybody else in the house -- whenever somebody's shirt is torn or some buttons are missing -- they come to me and say, 'I am going out -- first mend it.' And you are the only one... I have to come to you, and still you are not willing for the mending to be done."


I said, "No, not for mending. If you want to give me another shirt, that's okay. A mended shirt I am not going to wear. Unmended, I can wear it for the whole year; there is no problem because it is always fresh. I can always say I have just fallen from a tree."


The whole history of mind, in different branches, has been doing this patchwork -- particularly in mathematics because mathematics is purely a mind game. There are mathematicians who think it is not, just as there are theologians who think God is a reality.


God is only an idea. And if horses have ideas their God will be a horse. You can be absolutely certain it will not be man, because man has been so cruel to horses that man can only be conceived as a devil not as God. But then every animal will have its own idea of God, just as every human race has its own idea of God.


Ideas are substitutes for where life is mysterious and you find gaps which cannot be filled by reality. You fill those gaps by ideas; and at least you start feeling satisfied that life is understood.


Have you ever thought about this word "understand? It means standing under you. It is strange that this word has by and by taken a meaning which is far fetched from the original idea: anything that you can make stand under you, that is under your thumb, under your power, under your shoe, you are the master of.


People have been trying to understand life in that same way, so that they could put life also underneath their feet and declare, "we are the masters. Now there is nothing which is not understood by us."


But it is not possible. Whatever you do life is a mystery and is going to remain a mystery. Even if you I mean man someday comes to understand the whole of life, a new problem will arise: "Who is this man, this mind, this consciousness which has understood everything? From where does it come?"


In that documentary film one thing will be helpful to you. One of the mathematicians in the beginning part of the century -- a very famous mathematician, one of the greatest in the whole history of mathematics -- Freger, was doing the same work. His whole life he had devoted to creating a mathematical system which dissolves all paradoxes, all mysteries, all puzzles, and solves everything -- the ultimate solution.


And he was just going to publish it -- it is published now and it is a tremendous task that he has done.... But Bertrand Russell -- a young man at that time, and not very famous, just a little bit known as a philosopher in philosophical circles -- was also interested in mathematics. Later on Russell wrote one of the monumental books on mathematics, PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, in which three hundred and sixty-two pages are devoted only to proving a simple problem: one plus one is equal to two.


The book is just impossible -- to go on trying to read it is enough to drive anybody crazy! Even Bertrand Russell accepted that "after writing that book I have never been so sharp again; my whole sharpness got lost." Certainly he put too much energy into it, and a strange kind of energy; nobody reads that book.


I have been touring in India, visiting all the universities, great libraries, and I had a few things which I always took note of. One was to look at the book PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA of Bertrand Russell, to see whether anybody had read it or not. Its pages were not even cut, many pages were still joined.


In the old days, particularly the very famous publishers used a method -- I don't know why -- in which they never cut the pages, they left them joined. It was a much later development, just within thirty, forty years, that all the publishers started cutting the pages. But I think that one thing was good about it, about not cutting the pages: you could always know whether the book had even been read or not.


I have never seen in any university of India, in any library of India, the book's pages cut. Who is going to read three hundred and sixty-two pages just to find the conclusion that one plus one makes two? It is really so! Who is going to read three hundred and sixty-two pages of a large-size book?... and then it goes on for thousands of pages.


So Bertrand Russell was interested in mathematics. Knowing that Freger was going to publish a book which was going to solve all paradoxes, mysteries, and mathematical problems, he sent a paradox to this great mathematician who was trying to solve all great mysteries -- a simple paradox.


Freger was devastated, he felt all enthusiasm gone. The books were ready -- two volumes, his whole life's work -- and this man sends a brief letter with a small paradox saying, "Before you publish your book, please think about this paradox." That paradox has become famous as Bertrand Russell's paradox.


It is very simple, but Freger had no answer for it He did not publish his books in his life; they were published after his death. They are monumental, but he failed in the purpose of solving all paradox. He could not solve the single paradox that Russell had sent him.


The paradox is very simple: All the libraries in the country are ordered to make a catalogue of all the books in the library and send the catalogue to the national library. One librarian made the whole catalogue, and as he was going to pack and send the catalogue to the national library, a question arose in his mind: "Should I also include this catalogue inside or not? -- because this too is a book in the library. And the order is clear that all the books in the library should be catalogued.


"Now, what am I to do about this catalogue? This is a book in the library, so to include it seems to be right according to the order." This problem must have arisen in many a librarian's mind. What happened was that two types of catalogues arrived in the national library.


The national librarian made two piles, one which included the catalogue also in it, and another pile which did not include the catalogue in it. The national librarian was ordered to make a catalogue of all the catalogues that didn't include the catalogue in themselves. So he made a catalogue of all those catalogues which did not include the catalogue in themselves.


But when he was finishing he was puzzled what to do about his own catalogue. If he did not include it, then one catalogue which did not include itself would be left out of his catalogue. If he included it then this would not be a catalogue of only those catalogues which did not include themselves.


So Russell sent this simple paradox: "What is this librarian supposed to do? Before you go on solving other, bigger problems, please solve this problem! This librarian is in a difficulty." Now, whatever you do is wrong. If you don't include this catalogue, then one catalogue which does not include itself is out of your catalogue: all catalogues which do not include themselves are not included in it. If you include it then this is not a catalogue of only those which do not include.... You follow me?


But I don't see any problem. Freger was finished; Russell also had no answer for it. And every science, every philosophy, every religion, comes to the same point: somewhere or other something comes to the point where either you have to accept it unquestioningly, blindly... that's what religion calls faith, belief It is a patchwork.


By asking you to believe in it, to have faith in it, it means you shouldn't try to take away the patch because there is a hole -- abysmal, bottomless -- cover it! But by covering it, it is not dissolved. Nothing is solved; nothing is helped by covering it -- except that you remain blind. So why cover it? -- just close your eyes.


That's why all followers are blind followers, because if they have eyes then there is going to be trouble. Then they are going to find problems which are unsolved, questions which are unresolved.


Why has God been created? -- just to solve an unresolved question: Who created the universe? From that question all the religions take the plunge into some hypothesis -- God created the world....


But the question is exactly the same as Bertrand Russell's paradox. It is nothing different, it is just that that is mathematics and this is religion -- but the problem is the same. The axiom is that anything that exists has to be created by somebody. How can it come into existence by itself? This is the problem.


Everything that is, has been created; otherwise how can it come in the first place? So they bring in God to help you solve the problem, Who created the universe? But what are you going to do with God? Does God exist?


If He exists, then who created Him? If He does not exist then how could He create the universe? If He Himself does not exist, how can He create existence?


If He exists, then what about your basic maxim, that anything that exists needs a creator? No, about God don't ask that. That's what all the religions say -- about God don't ask that. But this is strange -- why not? If the question is valid about existence, why does it become invalid about God?


And once you ask about God, who created God, then you are falling into a regress absurdum. Then you can go on: God one, God two, God three, and you go on numbering them and... but finally the question will be the same. After thousands of Gods you will find the question stands clean, clear, untouched; not even a dent has been made in the question by all your answers. Who created existence? -- it is the same question.
To me existence is a mystery.


There is no need for it to stand under our feet, there is no need for existence to be understood.
Live it, love it, enjoy it -- be it.
Why are you trying to understand it?


I am not against God, I am only against a stupid hypothesis which leads nowhere.


And you ask me, Am I against Jesus Christ too? Why should I be against that poor fellow? I feel sorry for him, sad for him. I don't think that he deserved to be crucified. Yes, he was a bit crazy -- I cannot deny that -- but anybody who is a little bit crazy... that does not mean that he needs crucifixion. And crucifixion is not a cure for craziness.


In fact in crucifying Jesus you have created Christianity and you have driven so many people crazy. It is the crucifixion which is responsible for all this nonsense which has been going on for two thousand years and is still continuing.


Two of our sannyasins who are teachers in a school in Germany have been told that they cannot go in orange clothes and with the mala. They have been going for two years, so they asked, "What happened? -- because we have been coming with the mala and with our orange clothes and it has not disturbed our teaching. Has there been any complaint? Is our teaching in any way affected by it? Have we tried to convince anybody of our religion or our ideas?"


They said, "That's not the question. These are religious symbols and we don't want anybody to have religious symbols here."


Those teachers said, "Many people have crosses -- then their crosses should be taken away."


And you will be surprised what the answer from the committee was: "The cross is not a religious symbol it is just a piece of jewelry." So they wrote a letter to me asking, "What to do now? They say it is a piece of jewelry.


So I advised them, "Go to court and take your chairman to court. Let him prove that the cross is a piece of jewelry, that is has no relationship with Christianity, with Jesus Christ. Then inquire why only Christians use this piece of jewelry? Then ask why this cross is there in every church? A piece of jewelry... what is a piece of jewelry doing in the church? Why is it on top of every church -- a piece of jewelry? And what is this piece of jewelry doing in every graveyard, on every grave? And that, only in Christian churches, on their graves; no Hindu uses the piece of jewelry. A strange piece of jewelry!


"So take him to court and let him prove that this is a piece of jewelry, and it has no religious significance. Let him say that. Then he will be condemned by Christians themselves. And if the cross is allowed then he cannot prevent my people having their mala and their clothes,"


It is the crucifixion which made Christ -- without his knowledge -- the founder of Christianity.


I am not against that poor guy. In fact, he deserved a little better treatment. If we can find him somewhere there is no need to crucify him; he needs a few therapies to put him right, to put him together.


A little deprogramming..."You are not the son of God -- drop this idea. This is what is making you look unnecessarily a clown. It does not prove that you are a messiah, it simply proves you are nuts. And we have put many nuts together who were falling apart. Just a few people's nuts get loose, a few people's bolts get tight -- we just have to fix them a little bit."


Jesus was nothing dangerous. He was a nice fellow, but just to be nice is no protection against going crazy. He was nice, and gullible. He heard this idea continually proclaimed, "The messiah is going to come who will save the whole of humanity," and it got into his head; he had a swollen head. Just a little bit of treatment here and he would have been a perfectly good sannyasin.


I am not against him, I feel for him. This was too much, to put him on the cross; he had not committed any crime. And freedom of speech allows it; anybody can say, "I am the son of God." I don't think it harms anybody, or it takes away anybody else's right. You can say you are also the son of God. There is no problem in it.


Why did they make so much fuss about him? There was no need at all. All that he needed was to be ignored. If nobody had taken note of him he would have come to his senses by himself without any therapy. But because people started taking note of him and people started getting angry at him, he became more and more obsessed with the idea.


It is a natural conclusion: "If people are annoyed, irritated, then there must be something in it, otherwise why... why should they bother? If I was just a madman they would have laughed and gone home." But the whole of Judaism, all the rabbis, were disturbed. That was enough proof for Jesus that whatever he was saying must have had some significance.


Those old fools, those rabbis, destroyed that young man. By giving him importance, attention, they spoiled him. In fact, they needed to be punished -- and he was punished. I feel sorry for him. I am not against him. I am all for his treatment, cure, and a long, healthy life.
And you say you are freaking out.


Should I be freaking out or should you be freaking out?


I have been explaining to you continually that I want existence to be accepted as a mystery, because only as a mystery is it beautiful, liveable, loveable, blissful, ecstatic.
It is good that existence cannot be demystified.
There is no way to demystify it.
And I am the last person to demystify anything.
My purpose is just the opposite.


That's what I have been doing my whole life -- mystifying everything. It is not a difficult job because people have forced demystifications on things; I simply remove the cover, the patchwork, and I give you the raw life as it is.
There is no answer anywhere which is ultimate.


And there will never be any answer which will solve all the problems; hence, God is an impossibility because God means the ultimate answer.


And it is good that there is no God, otherwise we would be condemned. Then there would be no possibility of any joy, freedom, exploration, ecstasy -- no possibility for anything. God would have killed everything.


So I say to you, even if God was there then I would have trained you in how to kill Him. But fortunately He is not there, so we are saved from being in any way violent; otherwise that one violence I would have allowed. Even though I am for vegetarianism, if God was there I would have told you, "Finish Him! because with Him life is impossible."
You have not thought about the implications:
Only without God are you free.


Then your inner being has freedom. Then your essence has all possible potentialities to grow. Then there is nobody to dominate, nobody to dictate, nobody to manipulate.


You are not responsible to anybody except to yourself. Nobody can question you, why you did this; nobody can punish you or reward you. There is no way of somehow manipulating you into a certain way of life, because there is no God; and because there is no God how can there be a messiah and the son of God?


That's why I call Jesus nuts. It is just out of love and compassion that I call him nuts. But I am not against him. If I had been there I would have told the Jews and Pontius Pilate, "What are you doing? You are creating a religion -- of nuts!


"By crucifying this man you are committing a crime against the whole of humanity for centuries to come. Just leave him. Let him talk. What harm is it? -- it is just pure entertainment. People enjoy, they gather and they listen to him -- there is no harm in it. And he is not saying anything against the scriptures. Let him be free so that no religion is created."


He was incapable of creating Christianity, you can see that perfectly well. All that he could manage were twelve uneducated dodos; they became his apostles. But in this world it is very difficult to find who is the greatest dodo -- very difficult. Those dodos were great, but there are even greater dodos -- like Ronald Reagan.


Now, in his speech on the budget he is quoting those dodos from THE BIBLE. Those illiterate, uneducated fishermen, farmers and woodcutters -- what do they know about America and the budget? They may never have heard even the words budget, economics planning -- and he is quoting them! That's why I say it is very difficult to say who is the greatest dodo. There are dodos and dodos.


Jesus would have been unable in any way to create Christianity. He had no organizational power, he had no capacity to influence the cream of the society. How was he going to create a religion? But the crucifixion did everything. In this world things function in a very strange way.


Once he was crucified thousands of people who had never bothered about him felt sympathy for him. The same people who would not have even gone to listen to him if he had passed their way felt sympathy for him. And it was natural. Even Jews felt, "This is too much. The man was innocent... maybe talking in an outrageous way, but it was only talk, hot air -- nothing much in it. There was no need to crucify that fellow." It created a great wave of sympathy. Such sympathy is a natural phenomenon.


And those twelve dodos for the first time found that people who had never listened to their master were listening to them. And slowly slowly, people started gathering. They made THE BIBLE. They created the church. They started stories, miracles -- which are easier when the person is gone.


In those days these things were just rumors. And a rumor from one mouth to another ear has a tendency to become bigger because everybody wants to add something to it, some spice to it. Over three hundred years Jesus became a thousand times bigger than he ever was: by then he was a myth.


The real person was just an ordinary carpenter's son talking off the wall. But in three hundred years' time people's imagination did the whole work. And then in these two thousand years, scholars, professors, theologians, philosophers -- they are all going to increase the myth as much as they can and bring out of Jesus, meanings, words, philosophies, and ideologies of which that poor fellow was never aware.


I am not against God, or against Jesus Christ -- or against anyone.
But I am for the truth.
If it goes against anybody, I am helpless.
			

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