---
section: Library
booktitle: "The Great Challenge"
booktype: "Miscellaneous"
bookcode: "GCHALL"
chapternum: "Chapter #6"
chaptertitle: "Religion: The last luxury"
acode: "7100000"
shorttitle: "GCHALL06"
audio: "No"
video: "No"
esttime: ""
displaytitle: "The Great Challenge: Chapter #6"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->
<p class="question">WHY IS IT THAT WESTERN SOCIETIES ARE BECOMING SO INTERESTED IN INDIAN RELIGION NOW?</p>


I consider religion to be the last luxury. Only when a society becomes affluent does religion become meaningful. And now, for the first time, a greater part of the world is not poor. America in particular is the first society in human history to reach such affluence. To be religious, or to be interested in the ultimate questions of life, one needs to have really fulfilled all the lower wants and needs. So to me, a poor society cannot be religious. India was religious only when it was at a peak of affluence. For example, in Buddha's time India was just like America is today. In those days India was the richest land. The religion that we have in India today is just a leftover from those days.


There is a basic difference between a poor man's religion and a rich man's religion. If a poor man becomes interested in religion it will be just as a substitute. Even if he prays to God he will be praying for economic goods; the basic problem of man will not yet have arisen for him. So Marx is right in a way when he says that religion is the opium of the people. He is exactly right about poor people: they cannot get the basic needs of life fulfilled, so they substitute prayer and meditation and Yoga and religion. But for a rich man there is a basic change of dimension. Now he is not asking for economic goods, he is asking for the meaning of life.


Krishna, Mahavira, Buddha, the twenty-four tirthankaras of the Jainas, and the twenty-four avatars of the Hindus were all rich people: royally born, sons of kings. India has not had one avatar who was a poor man. Only Jesus was poor: that is why he was crucified. A poor man's son can be crucified very easily.
<p class="question">WAS HE AN AVATAR?</p>


Hindus do not consider him an avatar. But then you can consider anyone an avatar. Gandhi is considered an avatar by Gandhiites, Ramakrishna is considered one by Ramakrishnaites. There are so many avatars -- but that is not the problem.


The Hindu religion has twenty-four avatars; twenty-three have happened and one more is still to come. Buddhists and Jainas also have twenty-four buddhas and tirthankaras. All are the sons of kings; none is poor. That is one of the differences between Christianity and Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism: Christianity still remains a poor man's religion.


Because of that, Christianity could not achieve higher peaks. If you compare the Hindu scriptures, the Upanishads, with The Bible, The Bible seems poor and childish. The words are the same, the experiences are also the same in a way, but Christianity still remains a religion. Religion -- the organized body -- and mystical experiences are two different things.
<p class="question">AREN'T AUTHENTIC EXPERIENCES ALWAYS THE SAME?</p>


They are, but these spiritual experiences which are the same are individual experiences. The question con-cerns society, not individual mystics. What I am saying is that a poor man can become a mystic, but a poor society cannot become religious. A rich man is not necessarily religious, but a rich society will become hungry for religion. The moment a society becomes rich, new problems arise. These problems are not concerned with physical bodies and physical needs; they are more psychological.


If a poor man falls ill the illness is more or less concerned with the body. If a rich man falls ill the illness is more or less concerned with the mind. America needs more and more psychologists and psychoanalysis now because now the greatest number of madmen exist in America. American psychologists say that at least three out of four people are off the rails, not normal.


Your mind's needs arise for the first time when your bodily needs are fulfilled. And religion is a need of the mind, not a body need. That is why animals can live without religion, but man cannot -- the mind has come in.


When you are rich, ninety-nine percent of your concern is diverted to the mind. A rich individual may not be religious and a poor individual may be religious, but a poor society as a whole can have religion only as a substitute for economic wealth. Its prayer is not authentic because its prayer tries to demand, to get something.


America is going to become very important and meaningful as far as religion is concerned -- America and all the countries that are becoming richer and richer each day. In the coming days communism will be significant in poor countries and religion will be significant in rich countries. There is no future for religion in poor countries. Within the next twenty years they are all going to turn to communism.


China was a religious country; Russia was a religious country, as religious as any country. And they could wipe out religion in just ten years! China was a Buddhist country -- both Taoism and Buddhism were deeply rooted there.
<p class="question">BUT THERE, THE GOVERNMENTS WERE AGAINST RELIGION. THAT IS NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN IN INDIA.</p>


That's not the point. Religion, whether the government discourages or encourages it, is not the issue. The situation in India is such that religion cannot become meaningful. In a poor country, no matter what shape it takes -- you may call it socialism or anything else -- communism is going to be the religion. But in Russia religion will again become meaningful in twenty years time. Russia is not a poor country now and the moment a society becomes rich, you cannot escape religion. It is impossible.
<p class="question">IS IT RIGHT TO DELEGATE RELIGION ONLY TO THE RICH?</p>


It is not a question of right and wrong for me, it is a question of what the correct situation is. A person who is ill will go to the hospital and a person who is not ill will not go. So a poor country is bound to be attracted by communism. That is just the flow of history -- in a way it is inevitable. In the same way a rich country is bound to be attracted by religion.


In Russia, things have changed within the last ten or fifteen years. Now they have the greatest number of research scientists working on research projects in parapsychology in the whole world. And their findings are miraculous!


So it is not a question of right and wrong, it is just the way that history moves. In the long run communism does bring a certain affluence; then religion can become meaningful.
<p class="question">IS THIS DUE TO THE HUMAN NEED FOR NEWNESS?</p>


It is only the young man who becomes interested in new things. An old man has such an investment in old things that he cannot be interested in new things. And it is always the youth who feels the future in his veins, not the old man. The past is the home of the old man; the future, that of the young man. Because the young man will be living in the future, he is more interested in new developments, in new things.


The young are always dissatisfied -- always. Dissatisfaction is in their very hearts; otherwise they could not be young. If romance were absolutely satisfied they would not just be old but already dead. They always feel a discontent, a dissatisfaction, an inner restlessness. It is a good sign. Because of the inner restlessness they are ready to move into new dimensions.
<p class="question">WHY ARE YOUNG PEOPLE SO REBELLIOUS NOWADAYS?</p>


There are many factors. One is universal education: for the first time the youth of the world are well-educated. And to the educated mind the old establishment looks absurd and out of date -- rooted in the past, of course, but with no future.


Secondly, the scientific progress of the world and the scientific training of the young basically presupposes a training in doubt. Since all the old cultures and civilizations are based on faith, there is a gap. The young are trained for doubt and all religions and cultures require faith, so it becomes impossible. The young are now really in search of a faith which can be scientific, a faith which is so alive that it can allow doubt, a faith that is unafraid of doubt.


Life is complex, and everything exists with its polar opposite. A scientist begins with doubt and ends in faith while a religious man -- the religious man of old -- begins with faith: that is the only difference. And, as I see it, the faith that begins with doubt is deeper, because it is unafraid of doubt.


Doubt is not against faith, it is a way toward faith; it can be used as an instrument. If you can doubt rightly, you will come upon faith, and then your faith will be well grounded; it will not be a blind belief.


Thirdly, the world has become one. It has come so much closer together that local traditions cannot continue now. We need one culture, one civilization; and what we have are many cultures, many civilizations, and that creates confusion.


Once, everyone was enclosed in his own local world. A Hindu was a Hindu, with no awareness of anything else. It was impossible to conceive that anything else could be an alternate path. But now we are acquainted with multi-alternatives; the world has become an open world. No one is rooted in his local culture now, and that creates restlessness. In a way, we are uprooted. We have to build a world culture.


But before a world culture can come into being, local cultures will have to die. That is why the youth of today appear to be rebellious. It is not really the young who are rebellious, it is the resistance of the old establishment to the new world which creates rebelliousness.


Fourthly, we have created atomic weapons for the first time. Now there are two alternatives: either we will have to learn to live together or we will die together -- universal suicide or a universal society. Because of the possibility of total atomic war, the young are restless, the future is blurred. There seems to be no future -- an atomic war can happen at any moment, there may be no time to live -- so this very moment becomes very meaningful.


There is a deep correlation between time-consciousness and restlessness: the more time-conscious a society is, the more restless it becomes. But a society is always contented if it has no time-consciousness. In the East, we have lived very contented lives for centuries only because of the theory of reincarnation: "Time is infinite. If this life is lost, nothing is lost." But for Christianity there is only life: "Time is very short and man has much living to do." Time is so short that one becomes restless.


With atomic war threatening, there is no more time left for the future. It seems that any day the whole planet may be destroyed. For the first time, youth is more concerned with the present moment -- to live it, to enjoy it -- because there seems to be no future.


So these are the causes. But to me they are all good signs because through them we can create a new world and a new human mind can be born. The hippie slogan is good: "Make love not war." It is good! After 1984 either there is going to be no world, or an absolutely different world. And I hope for the latter.
<p class="question">WHY ARE MOST MEDITATION METHODS NOT MORE FRUITFUL IN HELPING PEOPLE?</p>


There are many meditation methods and each method is meaningful to a particular type of mind. Then, too, there are certain methods that are meaningful in a particular age.


All of our traditional methods are basically silent ones. My method of Dynamic Meditation ends in silence but begins in catharsis because in our age our minds need a deep catharsis first; only then can they become silent.


This method is needed only because the modern mind -- whether Christian or nonChristian, Hindu or nonHindu -- is a byproduct of a very suppressive attitude toward desires, thoughts, instincts... everything. We have lived for centuries with a very repressive attitude toward life. That repression has to be thrown out first, only then can you enter your center.


So my method is new in a way -- not in its results but only in the methodology. First you must throw your madness out; only then can you enter the inner.
<p class="question">WHAT IS YOUR CONCEPT OF SANNYAS?</p>


My concept of sannyas is totally different or, rather, totally contrary to the old concept of sannyas. The old concept of sannyas is one of withdrawing oneself from the world. My concept is that of just taking an inner attitude without any outward withdrawal. You remain in the world, you go on working as you were working, but now you are not serious about it. Now it is just an act. You are in the middle of a drama, that's all.


There is no need to withdraw -- I discourage any withdrawal because if you are not seriously involved in the world, you can be in it and above it.
So be in the world but do not allow the world to be in vou. That is sannyas.
			

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