---
section: Library
booktitle: "The Secret of Secrets, Vol 1"
booktype: "Discourses"
bookcode: "SOS1"
dategiven: "20 August 1978 am"
place: " in Buddha Hall"
chapternum: "Chapter #10"
chaptertitle: "The Zorba-Buddha Synthesis"
acode: "7808200"
shorttitle: "SOS110"
audio: "Yes"
video: "No"
esttime: "103mins"
displaytitle: "The Secret of Secrets, Vol 1: Chapter #10"
---

```style
.sutra {
  font-style: italic;
  white-space: pre-wrap !important;
}
```
<!--This file is automatically generated. Do not edit!-->


The first question:
<p class="question">OSHO, ALL MY LIFE I HAVE SAID YES AND NOW THAT I AM HERE WITH YOU AND THE YES SEEMS REALLY RIGHT, THERE COMES ONLY NO. WHAT IS THIS NO?</p>


Bhadra, it is very natural. If all your life you have been saying yes, it must have been false, it must have been pseudo. You must have forced yourself to say yes, you must have repressed your no continuously. And I teach relaxation, and I teach expression. So the repressed no is coming up, surfacing. Allow it. Please don't repress it anymore.


If you repress it here, then where are you going to express it? Once it is expressed, you will be free of it, and then the real yes will come. The yes that you have known up to now was not real. You have been cultivating this yes. It was just on the surface. Deep down the no has always existed in you.


But this is how we are brought up. This is how we are conditioned. This is how people have become utterly false, hypocritical, split. Their face says one thing, their being is saying just the opposite. This is how the whole of humanity has been turned into a kind of schizophrenia.


My approach is that yes and no are both absolutely necessary, part of the inner rhythm. The man who cannot say no cannot say yes either; and if he says yes, his yes will be impotent. Only the man who can say no vitally can say yes vitally. They depend on each other, just as life and death depend on each other, just as darkness and light depend on each other, just as love and hate depend on each other. This is the intrinsic polarity of life.


In a better world, with more freedom, with more understanding, a child will not be taught to say yes when he feels like saying no, he will be taught courage. Whenever he feels like saying no, he will HAVE to say no. And then his yes will have meaning.


A child will not be taught religion, because religion is yes-saying. He will not be forced to become a theist -- Hindu, Christian, Mohammedan -- he will be encouraged by the parents, by the school, by the university, to be honest, to be sincere, and to wait for the real yes to come on its own.


The world has become so false. Can't you see from where this falsity is arising? Millions of people go to the churches, temples, mosques, GURUDWARAS, and not a single person is religious. What kind of neurosis is this? They go just as a formality, they go because they have been taught to go, they go because they have become addicted to the habit of going. It is just a habit. If they don't go, they feel guilty. If they don't go they feel as if they are betraying their parents, their society. If they go, there is no joy in it. They simply drag themselves into it. They simply wait there until the ritual ends, the prayer ends, so that they can escape out of the temple, out of the church. It is a bogus kind of religion.


And the reason is that they have never been allowed to say no. No has to come first, only then can yes come. To really be a theist, first one has to go through the process of atheism. To really be a believer in God, first one has to go through the dark night of doubt, only then -- the dawn. There is no other alternative.


It is good, Bhadra, that the no is arising. You are being true for the first time in your life. Let it happen, and the yes will follow just as day follows night.


But this mischief has been done to you -- and in the name of great things: God, prayer, country, love, religion, church, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna. In the name of these great things much mischief has been done to you. You have been manipulated. And what is the outcome? You have become a plastic phenomenon; you don't have that sincerity which can make a person really religious.


My own observation is this: that a person who has not said no to God will never be able to say yes, or if he says it, his yes will be pointless.


The so-called religion is what Gregory Bateson calls the double-bind. One is ordered to do two things which are mutually exclusive: to be sincere and to believe. How can you be sincere if you are told to believe? To believe means to be insincere. To believe means to believe in something that you don't know, to which your whole heart says, 'No, I don't know. How can I believe?'


Belief is insincerity. And you have been told to be sincere and to believe. This creates a double-bind in you. Your religion, your so-called religion, is based on insincerity -- how can it be religious? The very beginning is poisoned, the very source has gone sour. No child should be taught religion. Every child should be taught inquiry, doubt, logic, reason.


And why are you so afraid of logic, doubt and reason? Because if a child really goes deep into doubt, he will find the futility of it on his own. And out of that finding trust arises. And then that trust has beauty, grandeur.


If a child reasons to the very end, he will come to the point where he will be able to see that now reasoning has come to an end but existence goes on and on. Existence is something beyond reasoning. But let every child feel it in his own guts!


To be true a religion has to be a religion of the guts, not of belief. Let the child think as much as he can, to his full capacity; let him burn with doubt, logic, reasoning, to the maximum, and he will see the limitations of the intellect. It is bound to happen. And when the limitations of the intellect have been seen, experienced, by yourself, you start moving into the beyond; you start surpassing the mind.


Belief is of the mind. This so-called yes-saying is of the mind. I teach you another kind of yes, which is not afraid of no, another kind of trust, which is not afraid of scepticism, which on the contrary uses scepticism as a jumping-board, which uses doubt as a process of cleansing.


Truth has to be trusted: to trust is an act of faith. But any statement of truth has to be tested too: to test it is an act of doubt. Faith and doubt both serve truth -- this is what I teach you. Faith and doubt are two wings of the bird called trust. If you cut off one wing, the bird cannot fly. Yes and no are two wings; use them, and use them in their totality. Never be insincere, not even in the name of God.


Sincerity is far more valuable than any dogma, than any Christianity, Hinduism, Islam. Sincerity is the foundation. But to be sincere means you have to give expression to all that is within you. Sometimes it is yes, and sometimes it is no. And you have to accept both.


So, Bhadra, it is something beautiful that is happening, don't be worried. I am not trying to force any yes on you, I am simply helping you to go through the whole process of both yes and no, so that one day you become aware that they are not enemies, not opposites, but complementaries.


Man is a question mark. And it is a blessing -- celebrate it. It is a blessing because only man is a question mark. No dog is. No tree is. The rose bush is beautiful, but not as beautiful as man, and the moon is beautiful, but not as beautiful as man -- because they are all unconscious. Only man is consciously on a quest. And how can you be on a quest if you don't have a question mark in your being?


God sends you with a question mark in your being. Celebrate it -- it is a great responsibility, a great heritage. Ask questions. Inquire. Doubt. And don't be worried, because I know that if you doubt long enough you will arrive at trust. And that arrival is incredible, because then you have arrived on your own. It is your own experience; it is no longer belief, it is knowing.


Sri Aurobindo was asked by a philosopher, 'Do you believe in God?' and he said, 'No.' The philosopher was, for a moment, shocked. He had come a long way, believing that this man had come to know God, and this man says, 'I don't believe in God. For a moment he could not gather courage to ask anything else. Shocked, he was dumb.


Then he said, 'But I thought that you had seen God.'


Sri Aurobindo laughed and said, 'Yes, I have seen, that's why I say I don't believe. Belief is out of ignorance. I know! I don't "believe".'


And remember it: you have to know, you are not here to believe. My help is available for you to KNOW. Belief is a trick of the mind. Without knowing, it gives you the feeling that you have known.


Man is a question mark -- and it is a blessing. Celebrate it, dance it, rejoice in it, because without that question mark there could be no faith, or doubt -- nothing but dead certainty. That's where animals live: in dead certainty. And that's why your priests and your politicians want you to live in dead certainty.


Life hesitates. Life is uncertain. Life is insecure. That's why it is life: because it moves.


Socrates is reported to have said, 'I would not like to become a contented pig. Rather than being a contented pig, I would like to remain a discontented Socrates.'


Meditate over it. It is a statement of immense value. The pig is contented, absolutely certain. That's why people who are stubborn and think themselves absolutely certain are called piggish.
For example, poor Morarji Desai is called piggish.


People who are stubborn are bound to be stupid. A man who is alive moves into uncertainties, moves into the unknown. He cannot live in a dead certainty. Certainty simply means you have not doubted.


There is another kind of knowing which comes out of doubting, which comes out of growth. And when that kind of knowing comes, again you are not certain. But now the uncertainty has a totally different flavour. If you had asked Buddha about God he would have kept quiet. That's where he is far superior to Sri Aurobindo. He would have kept absolutely silent, he would not have said yes or no. Why? -- because he says, 'The ultimate is so tremendously vast that to say yes will be wrong, to say no will be wrong, because our words are so small they cannot contain the ultimate. The ultimate can only be conveyed through silence.'


A Zen Master was asked, 'Can you say something about God?' He remained utterly silent, he listened to the question with open eyes and then he closed his eyes. A few moments went by. For the questioner those few moments seemed very long. He was waiting and becoming restless, and the Master had moved into some other space. There was great ecstasy on his face but no answer. That ecstasy was the answer. There was utter silence in his being, and the silence was vibrant all around him -- you could have almost touched it, it was so solid. But the restless questioner was not aware of it at all, he was too concerned with his question, and he was waiting for the answer. He shook the Master, and said, 'What are you doing? I have asked a question, and you closed your eyes and you are sitting in silence. Answer it!'


And the Master says, 'But that's what I was doing. This is my answer.'


Certainly this is far superior to Sri Aurobindo's answer. But the man, the questioner, was not satisfied. He wanted something conveyed verbally. He insisted, and he would not leave the Master. So the Master said, 'Okay.'


They were sitting on a river bank. The Master wrote in the sand with his finger: Meditation.


Now, the question is about God, and the answer is about meditation. It is utterly irrelevant. And the questioner was right to say, 'Are you joking or something? I am asking about God, and you write on the sand: Meditation.'


And the Master said, 'That's all that I can say or that I am allowed to say. You ask about the goal, I talk about the way, because the goal is so incomprehensible, so mysterious, that nothing can be said about it. I can simply sit in silence. If you have eyes to see, see! If you have ears to hear, hear! Hear my silence, and the song that my silence is, and the music that arises in it. If you cannot hear it, that simply shows you need meditation. So meditate.'


The man said, 'Just this much -- one word, "meditation"? Won't you elaborate on it a little?'


He wrote again in bigger letters: MEDITATION. That was his elaboration .


The man was puzzled and he said, 'But you are simply repeating. Just writing it in bigger letters won't help.'


So he wrote again in even bigger letters: MEDITATION. He said, 'Nothing more can be said about it. You will have to do it. You will have to be it.'


There is a kind of uncertainty when you don't know, because how can you be certain when you don't know? And there is a kind of uncertainty when you know, because how can you be certain about the ultimate? It is so vast; to be certain about it will make it small, to be certain about it will show that it is in your grasp, that it is in your fist. And God cannot be possessed; on the contrary, you have to be possessed by God.


Accept your no, accept your yes. And don't think that they are opposites; they are not. Just as there can be no courage without danger, so there can be no faith without uncertainty, without doubt. Risk is part of the game that we are born to play. We must learn to lean on possibilities -- not on certainties but on possibilities.


I can only say to you God is possible. I can only say to you yes is possible. Lean on the possibilities, don't ask for certainties. Because you ask for certainties, you create authorities. Out of your need to be certain you become victims of people who are stubborn, ignorant, but certain. Only parrots can be certain because they have ready-made answers. Pundits can be certain because pundits are nothing but parrots.


A real man of knowledge will help you to be silent: will help you to go through yes and through no, through faith and through doubt, through warmer moments and through cooler moments; will help you to go through days and nights, peaks and valleys. And he will not teach any dogma, but will only teach you courage, adventure, quest.


Listening to your question, I remembered two stories.


There was a boy five or six years old who had acquired the habit of using swear words in his ordinary conversation. His parents tried their best to break him of this habit, and in final desperation hit upon a plan which they thought would work. They called their son into a family consultation and laid out the facts before him, saying, 'Now, son, we just can't have a little boy in our home who continues to use this kind of language. So we have decided that if you cannot break yourself of the habit, something drastic must be done. We are giving you fair warning that the very next time we hear a swear word in your conversation, you are simply going to have to pack your bag and move out of this house. We can't put up with that language any longer. Do you understand?'


He did not say anything, although he did nod his head. But the habit, it seemed, was too great for him to break all at once, and they soon heard him interspersing his favourite swear words in conversation.


His mother said, 'Son, we have given you fair warning and now you are going to move out. Go pack your bag.'


The boy went to his bedroom reluctantly, packed his suitcase, said goodbye to his mother and left. He did not know what in the world he was going to do, so he sat on the front steps trying to collect his thoughts. As he waited there a neighbour came by, looked at him and asked, 'Is your mother home, dear?'


He looked at her with a sour face, and said, 'How the hell should I know? I don't live here anymore.'


You cannot force, you cannot repress, you cannot order these things. These things need understanding. And parents are doing it all the time, just saying, 'Don't do this, do that'; just giving commandments, never giving understanding insight. Children need insight, not commandments. They need your love, they need your help to understand things. They don't want to imitate you. In fact, they should not be forced to imitate you, because if you force them to imitate you, you will be destroying their very soul. Give your love and give them freedom, and help them to become aware. Help them to be more meditative.


But that is not being done. We simply force. Forcing a thing seems to be a very short-cut procedure. Who bothers? Because you don't love enough, that's why you don't bother. Who bothers to give an insight to a child? It is very simple: 'Just go and do this because I say so, because I am your father and I know more because I am older than you.' The child may be forced to do a certain thing because he is helpless, but deep down he will carry the wound. And, Bhadra, you must have been carrying many wounds deep down.


My love to you, my help to you is bringing your wounds to the surface. It is good, because once the wounds come to the surface, in the sunlight they can be healed. There is no other way to heal them. You are coming to health. Don't be afraid. Let all those nos come up. They will be released, and you will be free of them.


A little girl had disobeyed her parents and they decided she should be punished. They took her upstairs to the bedroom, put her in the clothes-closet, closed the door and said, 'Now dear, you just take time to think it over, and see if you can't make up your mind to be more loving toward your parents and not disobey them.'


After a few minutes the parents consciences began to bother them, and they went up, knocked on the door, and said, 'Dear, how are you?'
'Oh, I am fine.'
'What are you doing?' asked her mother.
'Well,' she replied, 'I spit on your dress, I spit on your coat, I spit on your shoes, and I am just sitting here waiting for more spit.'

The second question:
<p class="question">OSHO, PLEASE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS NEWS ITEM: THE INDIAN EXPRESS OF 18TH AUGUST REPORTS THAT THE RAJNEESH FILM WON'T REFLECT THE REAL IMAGE OF INDIA. THE UNION INFORMATION MINISTER, L.K. ADVANI SAID IN THE PARLIAMENT, 'FOREIGN TELEVISION AND FILM UNITS HAVE BEEN REFUSED PERMISSION TO DOCUMENT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RAJNEESH ASHRAM, AS IT IS FELT THAT A FILM ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASHRAM WOULD NOT REFLECT FAVOURABLY ON INDIA'S IMAGE ABROAD.'</p>


This is really surprising from a politician, because the politicians are the people who destroy the images of countries. From the peon to the Prime Minister, the politicians are the people who are the most corrupt. Their corruption is not going to help the image of the country in the world. They should think about it. Their continuous quarrelling for stupid reasons destroys the image of a country -- and nowhere else can you find more quarrelsome politicians than in India. And the quarrels have no ideological basis at all; the quarrels are simply quarrels which are personal -- their own personal greed.


The Indian politicians seem to be the most greedy -- greedy for power, hungry for power; continuously fighting with each other. Their whole time is wasted in quarrelling. The country is going to the dogs, and sitting in New Delhi, all that they do is fight with each other -- how to topple the other. Everyone wants to become Prime Minister. And once you become Prime Minister, all that you do is to protect your prime ministership. Your whole time is wasted in becoming the Prime Minister -- almost your whole life. Morarji Desai's whole life was wasted in becoming Prime Minister. Now, at the age of eighty-three, he has arrived. Now the whole time is wasted -- how to remain in the seat till you die?


And once you are in the seat you don't want to die. You can do anything. He drinks his own urine. He thinks he is going to become immortal through it.


Now, is this urine-drinking Prime Minister helping the Indian image abroad? They should think about it. They should not be worried about me and my people. But politicians are the lowest as far as intelligence is concerned. They are the most inferior people in the world.
I have heard...


A politician went to the psychoanalyst, and he said, 'I suffer from an inferiority complex.'


The psychiatrist worked upon the politician -- many sessions of analysis. And then, finally he said to him, 'You need not worry.' The politician said, 'I need not worry? So there is no problem?' And the psychiatrist said, 'Yes, there is no problem, because you are simply inferior. You need not suffer from any inferiority complex. It is simply so.'


Once I was staying in a circuit house with a politician. In the morning we were sitting on the lawn. He was reading the newspaper. That's all they read -- that is their Koran, Bible, Gita.


Suddenly he looked up at me and said, 'I'll never be able to understand how people always seem to die in alphabetical order.'


And another time, I was travelling in a train and, unfortunately, in the same compartment was a politician. I say 'unfortunately' because they stink. Nothing stinks like politics. It is the dirtiest thing in the world.


He started talking to me, and I asked him if he had heard the latest joke about politicians.
'I am warning you,' he said, 'I am a politician myself.'
'That's all right,' I told him, 'I will tell it very very slowly.'


I am not part of any tradition, that's what is creating trouble for the Indian politicians. I don't belong to the past, I belong to the future. They cannot understand me -- it is impossible for them. If I had belonged to the past, there would have been no difficulty. But I don't belong to the past. A really religious person never belongs to the past. Buddha never belonged to the past, that's why Hindus were angry. Jesus never belonged to the past, that's why Jews were angry.Jesus, Buddha, Krishna -- they are all pointing to the future, not to the past.


Do not embrace the past or you will have missed the whole point. Tradition is not religion. Religion is always a surpassing, a transcending, a going beyond.


If I had been a Hindu there would have been no difficulty. I am not. If I had been a Mohammedan there would have been no difficulty. I am not -- neither am I a Buddhist or a Jaina. And they are very confused: they cannot categorize me, they cannot pigeonhole me. No religious person can ever be pigeonholed, because basically religion is freedom -- freedom from the past, freedom to be herenow, and freedom to be available to the future.


What I am trying to bring to you is something of the future. People will be able to understand it only after hundreds of yearS. And then these same politicians will pay respect, as they pay respect to Jesus. And these are the people who crucified him, and these are the people who stoned Buddha and Mahavir. And these are the people who poisoned Socrates. These are the same people. Beware of them!


They are always against the future. Why are they against the future? -- because their vested interest is always rooted in the past. They can manipulate the past, they cannot manipulate the future. They can exploit the past, they cannot exploit the future. They can exploit irreligious people, they cannot exploit religious people. They can exploit the pseudo-religious very easily, there is no problem in it, because a pseudo-religious person is almost a shadow, not a reality. And the pseudo-religious person is always ready to be manipulated, to be transformed, into a slave.


I am creating rebellious people here, rebellious in a multi-dimensional way. The politicians are bound to be afraid. And they will find excuses.


Now he says, 'The Rajneesh film won't reflect the real image of India...'


I would like to say to him: Do you understand the meaning of the real? The real means that which is happening, and this ashram is happening, I am happening. Any image of India that does not include me will be unreal -- only because it will not include something which IS happening. What do you mean by 'real image'?


A real image means: that which is existential, that which is happening. You may not like me, you may not like my people, but you cannot say that I don't reflect the real image of India. You may be against me, but still I am part of this country. I am here, and I am going to be here! And my people are going to increase. This is part of reality. This may be just a seed now, but soon it will become a great tree. How can you deny its reality?


We have 200,000 sannyasins all over the world. Nobody else can claim that. And we have almost a million lay followers, lay disciples. It is part of reality now. Three thousand sannyasins are almost always present here. Every year nearabout 25,000 people visit from all the countries all over the world. No other place can claim this. How can you say this is not real?


I think, Mr. Advani, you will have to learn language a little bit more. Real is that which is happening. It may not be according to you -- right, that is another point -- but it is real. And I would like to tell you also that it is not something which is alien to the spirit of India, what is happening is this phenomenon which is really the very soul of India. It happened in Buddha's time, it happened in Mahavir's time, it happened in Krishna's time. It has happened again and again. The REAL India -- if you really want to say what the real India is -- consists not of politicians but of the mystics. The politicians come and go; the mystics remain.


Do you remember any politician's name of the time of Buddha? Where are they? And they must have been as noisy as Mr. Advani. In their own time they must have been very noisy; they must have created much fuss. Do you remember the politicians who crucified Jesus? And if you remember the name of Pontius Pilate, you remember it only because he crucified Jesus; otherwise who would have remembered? There have been thousands of governor-generals in the world.


A politician said to the dying Socrates, 'We are sorry that you had to be sentenced to death.'


Socrates opened his eyes and said, 'Don't be worried. You cannot kill me, I will live. And remember, your name will be remembered only because of me.'
And that is so.


The real India is a quest of the innermost soul of man -- not the geography, not the political history, but the inner journey. The journey of meditation is the real India. Mahavir represents it. Buddha represents it. Krishna and Christ and Nanak -- they represent the real India. And I have the heritage of all of them -- and much more.


But it has been always so. If Advani were Minister of Broadcasting in Mahavir's time, he would have stopped the BBC from filming Mahavir because Mahavir used to live naked. Or, if he had been a minister in Lalla's time... Lalla was a mystic woman; she lived naked. Certainly he would have prevented any television unit, any film unit from approaching these people for the same reason: that they don't represent, they don't reflect, the real image of India.


Does Mr. Advani reflect the real image of India? You will be gone down the drain soon, I predict. By the next election you will be heard of no more. You and your whole company will just go down the drain, because the country has seen that you have deceived and cheated it. In the name of democracy all kinds of wrong people have become powerful in India. And they have not done a single thing since they have been in power except quarrel.


I must remind you of the three monkeys of Mahatma Gandhi. You must have heard of them -- those three monkeys are very famous. He had always a statue of them. Somebody from Japan or from China had presented him with three monkeys. One monkey keeps his hands on his eyes, representing that you should not see that which is wrong. Another monkey keeps his hands on his ears, symbolizing that you should not hear that which is not worth hearing. And the third monkey keeps his hands on his mouth: you should not say what is not worth saying, you should keep quiet.


These three monkeys have come to rule. Now they are called the TRIMURTI -- the three monkeys are Mahatma Gandhi. The chief monkey keeps his hands on his ears; he will not listen. The whole country is shouting, 'We are dying. We are starving. The population is growing.' But he will not listen. His name is Mahatma Morarji Desai. He will not listen. The whole country is crying, 'Your son is a criminal; his activities should be investigated -- he is accumulating money by illegal means.' But he will not listen. He is the chief monkey of Mahatma Gandhi. He keeps his ears shut and goes on smiling; drinks his own urine and keeps himself healthy. That's all that he is doing.


The other monkey keeps his eyes shut, because he represents the untouchables, the down-trodden, the lowest of the low -- and they are being burned alive! They are being killed, butchered, murdered, raped. And never before has it happened like this. All over the country their lives are in danger. And the man who represents them, Jagjivan Ram, simply keeps his eyes closed, because if he opens his eyes and sees what is happening he will not be able to say that he is their representative there.


But the third monkey, who was supposed to keep quiet and not say anything, has betrayed the others and has said something -- Charan Singh. And because of his saying something he has been thrown out of the trinity. But he is trying to get back in again. And the other two monkeys are trying to keep him out because he started saying things that he should not say. And why did he start saying things? -- because he is getting old. Heart attacks and everything are happening to him, and he seems to have no chance of becoming Prime Minister of India. He has to speak. Time is running out fast. He has to struggle; he cannot keep quiet anymore.


These monkeyish people in New Delhi, do they think that THEY represent the real India? They simply represent the neurotic part of India; they represent the people who suffer from inferiority complexes. That's what the great psychologist Adler says: a man goes into politics only if he suffers from an inferiority complex. He wants to prove to himself that he is somebody. He has to prove it, otherwise there is great anguish in his being, that 'I am inferior.' Untalented people, unintelligent people go into politics. Those who are talented become artists, painters, poets, philosophers, mystics, dancers. They have a thousand and one other beautiful things to do, not politics. Only the third rate, the most unintelligent part of a country, moves into politics. Those who cannot do anything else, at least they can go into politics. The politicians are almost hidden criminals; the same quality of people become criminals. If they cannot reach to power, they become destructive.


And what wrong is happening here that they are afraid should not be known in the world at large?


One thing. A great synthesis is happening here -- something that has never happened before, of which they are afraid, and which NEEDS to happen. It is a must for humanity's survival. I am trying to create a great synthesis: the synthesis between Zorba the Greek and Gautam the Buddha, the synthesis between materialism and spiritualism. I am trying to create a spiritual materialism. These two things have always remained separate, antagonistic to each other. And because of their antagonism man has remained schizophrenic, because man is both body and soul. Man is not only soul, man is not only body. To insist that man is only body is materialism. To insist that man is only soul is spiritualism. Both are half, and both are wrong because they are half, and both are unsatisfactory alone. They have proved unsatisfactory.


Man has to be accepted in his totality. As far as the body is concerned, a man has to be Zorba the Greek. And as far as the soul is concerned, a man has to be Gautam the Buddha. If body and soul can exist together, why can Buddha and Zorba not exist together in a single man? That will be the highest synthesis.


The West has remained materialistic. It suffers from materialism. It has all the benefits of materialism: great technology, beautiful houses, better medical facilities, longer life, more beautiful bodies, more healthy bodies. It has all the benefits of materialism, it is rich, affluent, but it suffers because it has lost its soul. The inner world is empty, hollow. The West has all that is needed on the outside, but in managing the outside it has leaned too much towards materialism and forgotten its own inner world. The master is lost; the soul is lost. The kingdom is there but the king is dead, hence the Western anguish, hence the Western search for the king. Hence the inquiry into meditation, because meditation is the only way to seek and search for the inner king. Where has he gone? Where is the inner light?


The East has remained spiritual. It has all the beauties of spirituality: calmness, quietness, relaxedness, loving, compassion. It has a certain quality, a flavour of the inner, but the body is sick, and there is great poverty and starvation all around. And the outer world is ugly; it has suffered much too. And both are tense, because unless you are whole you will be tense.


Can't you see that the East is no more interested in meditation? That's why you don't see many Indians here. The East is no more interested in meditation, it is no more interested in Buddha; its interest has shifted, and it is natural. It wants to know more about physics, chemistry, engineering, medical science. Eastern talent goes to the West, to Oxford, to Cambridge, to Harvard, to Princeton, to learn what has happened in the West. Eastern talent has only one desire: how to go to the West and learn something of modern science. The talented Eastern person cannot believe why you Westerners are coming to the East. You have Oxford and you have Harvard, why are you coming here? We are trying to get there and you are coming here. It looks so absurd.


But the West has to come to the East. Harvard and Oxford have proved lacking. They have given much, but they have not given inner richness. The West is affluent, and because the West is affluent, the West has become more aware in contrast to its affluence of the inner poverty, the inner black hole. The outside is so full of light that the inner black hole in contrast has become very clear. The search has started -- the West is moving towards the East, the East is moving towards the West.


The Eastern intellectual becomes a communist, and the Western intellectual becomes a meditator. This can go on, and this can lead again to another kind of shift and to misery. The West can become the East and the East can become the West, and the problem will remain the same.


My effort here is a great experiment in bringing the East and West together.


Kipling has said that East and West shall never meet. I would like to tell Kipling -- he must be somewhere in his grave, because he is a Christian and he will not leave the grave before the Last Judgement Day -- Sir, East and West ARE meeting. They have already met. They are meeting here in this place, which Advani says does not represent the real image of India.


It represents the East, but it represents more than the East: it represents East plus West, it represents the whole of humanity; it is an experiment in universal brotherhood. You will find Christians, Jews, Mohammedans, Parsees, Jainas, Buddhists, Hindus -- all kinds of people -- here. They have all dropped their identities, they have fallen into a universal brotherhood. And you say this does not represent the real image of India?


And remember also: India is not a small country, it is a vast continent. It is not one tradition, it is many traditions. But the people who are in power now are basically Hindu chauvinists. A very wrong kind of person has come to power. Their whole idea is of a very narrow Hinduism -- so narrow that it does not even contain the whole current of Hinduism. Hence it is very much afraid.


If these people are allowed to have their say, sooner or later they will bulldoze Khajuraho, Konarak, because they will say they don't represent the real image of India.


Why are they so much against me? -- because here Yoga is happening, Sufism is happening, Zen is happening, Tao is happening, Tantra also. And Tantra is creating trouble.


These people in New Delhi are utterly sexually frustrated, repressed people.


Khajuraho is being born again here. To whom does Khajuraho belong? I have not made that temple. I would suggest to Advani: Destroy Khajuraho, because the BBC people may come and film it. It is a beautiful temple, one of the most beautiful on the earth, because there is nothing more beautiful than love. There is nothing more graceful then a couple in deep love, in a deep loving embrace. There is nothing more divine than that. Something of God descends when a couple is in deep love, in an orgasmic ecstasy. Khajuraho represents that. Konarak represents that. And there are thousands of Tantra scriptures. Please destroy them before anybody comes to know about them. Destroy Vatsyayana's KAMA SUTRA.


Why are you so afraid of me and my people? They are not doing any harm to anybody. They are not training for any war, they are preparing for a more loving life. Yes, alongside with Yoga, Tao, Zen, Tantra is also a part. And because a few newspapers -- and they also belong to the same repressed sexual mind -- print some nude pictures taken in the ashram... That is all they have against me.


That nudity in itself is part of a long Indian tradition. Jaina DIGAMBARA MUNIS are nude -- prevent them, they are still nude. Thousands of Hindu sannyasins live in nudity -- prevent them. Destroy all the temples of the Jainas, because Mahavir and the other twenty-three TEERTHANKARAS have their nude statues there. And destroy all the Hindu temples of Shiva, because the SHIVA-LINGA IS nothing but a phallic symbol.


Then only can you say... First, destroy all these things, then only can you say that Rajneesh and his ashram don't reflect the real image of India. Otherwise, India is a vast continent thousands of years have passed and many traditions have lived together. Tantra has existed side by side with Yoga.


Yoga is repressive, Tantra is expressive. Yoga is afraid of sex, Tantra rejoices in sex. Yoga says, 'Avoid sex if you want to go to God,' and Tantra says, 'Use sex if you want to go to God.' And my own observation is that Tantra is far more profound than Yoga, because sex is the energy given to you by God; repressing it will be very disrespectful to God. Use it. And it is the creative energy in you: it creates the child, it brings new life. It has some other aspects also, hidden aspects. If you use it meditatively, if you use it as prayer, it call create you anew, it can give you a rebirth. You will become a DWIJA, a twice-born.


Sex energy has two poles to it. One is: if it moves downwards, it reproduces children. A tremendous miracle, the birth of a child. If it moves upwards, it creates you: a new integrity, a new individuation, a new centre of being is born. Tantra is one of the greatest sciences ever born for the transformation of man. And this place is not an ordinary ashram, dull, dead, as Indians have become accustomed to ashrams, this place is an alchemical academy. We are doing great experiments in expanding human consciousness, and we are using all kinds of techniques available to humanity, both Eastern and Western. They are very much afraid of this.


He says, 'The Rajneesh film won't reflect the real image of India... it is felt that a film on the activities of the ashram would not reflect favourably on India's image abroad.'


But just by preventing the BBC, the Spanish TV unit, the Australian TV unit, the German TV unit, and journalists from reaching here, do you think you will be able to prevent me from reaching people? If Jesus could reach without the BBC, do you think you will be able to prevent me from reaching people? If Buddha could reach without any modern media available to him, do you think you will be able to prevent me?
It cannot be prevented.


Truth can never be prevented. If there is some truth in me, it has to reach people. It will reach, and people will reach me. No government can prevent me from reaching people. Yes, you can prevent newspapers, you can prevent television stations, you can prevent radio. Who cares?


I will reach through my people to millions of people. If there is truth, people will come from all over the world, seeking and searching. If they are thirsty, they are bound to seek and search, because I have something here which can quench their thirst.


And without ever coming here... Advani has never come here, no other minister has ever come here. Saying such silly things without coming here is not right.


And, sir, I would suggest to you... Your government is very skillful in creating commissions. That's an that you have done within this year and a half that you have been in power. All that you have done is to create commissions. Why don't you create a commission to visit the ashram to see what is happening here? Just remember one thing: be careful, because people who come here get caught. And be careful also whom you send. All the information that you have about the ashram you depend on getting from your police departments. How can they understand? What can they understand? All the information that you have you depend on getting from your government machinery. What can they understand?


So don't appoint a commission with some senile, retired judge. That won't help. Remember that what is happening here is something so scientific that only people who know something about modern developments in humanistic psychology, who know something about encounter therapy, gestalt, psychodrama, primal therapy, who know something about psychoanalysis, psychosynthesis, who know something about EST, Arica, who know something about Vipassana, Zazen, Sufi whirling -- only they will be able to understand what is happening here.


This place has great intellect, great intelligence, great talent. We have hundreds of D.Litt.s, Ph.D.s, D.Phil.s, and thousands who have M.A.s, M.Sc.s and other qualifications. No other Indian university can claim as much talent as we have here. Even Ph.D.s are cleaning toilets!


So send some educated people, not your M.P.s -- they won't understand a thing -- and then decide. You are also invited, Mr. Advani.


And what kind of democracy is this? You came to power in the name of democracy. Even Indira did not dare to interfere with my work. And you are democrats...? Nothing but Hindu chauvinists!


India is a vast continent. Do you think Charvarka and his materialism is not India? Do you think Buddha, who denies God, who denies the soul, who denies the world, who is a nihilist -- an utter nihilist, a nihilist PAR EXCELLENCE -- was he not a Hindu? Do you think Tilopa and Saraha were not Indians? Great tantrikas.


Who do you think is Indian? Just Mahatma Gandhi and Mahatma Morarji Desai -- these two persons are Indian? Then you don't even know much about Mahatma Gandhi.


The whole of his life he repressed sex, and he found in his old age that he had been on a wrong path. And then he started -- he had to start -- Tantra experiments. What about that? In his last years of life he was sleeping with a naked young girl. His whole life of repression had failed because even when he was seventy he was suffering from wet dreams and sexual fantasies. Then, as an ultimate resort, as an ultimate shelter, he started looking into Tantra. He died a tantrika. What about that? And you call him the Father of the Nation? Stop calling him Father of the Nation; he does not represent the real image of India. What do you think about him -- at the age of seventy, sleeping with a young girl, an eighteen-year-old girl, naked? And you call him Father of the Nation...


And one thing more. These are the people, Advani and company, who created the climate in which this man, Mahatma Gandhi, was murdered -- these Hindu chauvinists. But what kind of hypocrisy is this? Now they pay tribute and call him Father of the Nation. And these are the murderers; they created the climate in the country to murder that man. And now they worship him. In his name now they are in power.


India has many currents. And it is beautiful. It is not a monolith, that's why it is beautiful. It is a rainbow, it has all the colours: Buddhists have an ideology, Jainas have a totally different ideology, and Hindus have many ideologies. Hinduism is not a narrow religion. In Hinduism there is nothing like a Pope or a church; it is not an organized religion at all. And that is the beauty of it; it allows all kinds of people to have all kinds of ways. It says: All ways lead to God. It is the most tolerant religion in the world.


But the Hindu chauvinist cannot tolerate it. He starts trying to make Hinduism also as narrow as he is narrow. These are the ideas in their minds. These ideas are creating trouble for them.


All kinds of people come to me. You will find scientists here, you will find psychologists here -- in hundreds. You will find psychotherapists here, you will find poets, painters, artists, musicians, actors. You will find all kinds of talented people here -- except politicians.


Why is the politician so afraid to come here? There is a reason. The politician is the least religious person in the world, the most anti-religious person in the world. Politics and religion are polar opposites. Politics is ambition, religion is non-ambition. Politics is an ego trip, religion is the dissolution of the ego. Politics is struggle, a cut-throat competition; it is basically, essentially violent. Religion is love -- no competition, no comparison. Hence you will not find politicians here.


And because I call a spade a spade, they are afraid of me. They can't come face to face with me. Mr. Advani, I invite you and your colleagues to come here and encounter me, encounter my people. It will give you some insight into what is happening here.


It is one of the greatest experiments ever done: how to expand human consciousness without drugs. And, let me tell you, politics is a drug. Politicians are alcoholics. Politics is a kind of neurosis. You can go to the parliament and sitting there for one day just watch and you will see: you will not see such madness even in a madhouse. And these people are going to decide who represents India?


India is vast, let me say it again. Nobody can represent the whole of India -- nobody has that authority to represent the whole of India. It is not a tiny, small place; not one tradition, not one religion, not one language either. And these Hindu chauvinists are trying to force one language on the country. Behind Hindi there is nothing but Hindu chauvinism. They are trying to force one language, Hindi, on the whole country -- which is nonsense; it cannot be done, it should not be done. And remember, my own mother tongue is Hindi, and I love it; it is a beautiful language. But that is another matter. This country has many beautiful languages. No language should be forced on the country, that will be violent, undemocratic. But that's what they are trying to do -- directly, indirectly. And let me warn the country: if these people persist in trying to force Hindi on the whole of the country, that will be the reason one day or other that India becomes split. South India is bound to go on its own way against the North, because the North is becoming too Hindu chauvinistic.


If this country is going to be destroyed one day, the reason will be these people who are in power today. India cannot have one language. And if it can have one language, that language has to be neutral; either it will be English or Esperanto, but not Hindi, not Gujarati, not Marathi, not Bengali, not Tamil. It will have to be a neutral language. English is neutral; it is nobody's mother tongue in India. And English is international too, so it is perfectly good. I support a two-language formula: English as the national language, because it is also international and as the second language, the mother tongue. Each child should be taught two languages. Forget all about Hindi, and forget all about creating one monolith in this country of variety, of multiplicity.


And they are trying to do the same thing with religion too, in the same way. They want to force me not to do what I am doing here because my approach is non-political. I have no vested interest in anything -- in any language, in any province, in any religion, in any tradition. My approach is that the whole past is ours -- and not only the Indian past, the whole past of humanity is ours. That's why I have chosen to speak on Chinese Masters, Japanese Masters, Greek Masters, Hebrew Masters. I am going to speak on all the Masters of the world, so that, listening to all these different songs, you can become universal.


They are afraid of all this. They would like me only to talk on the Bhagavad Gita. The Bhagavad Gita is beautiful, and I have talked on it, but I am not going to talk ONLY on this. I don't belong to any tradition, to any past. I claim the whole past as mine, and the whole future too.


It happens sometimes that a politician wants to come, but then he sends 'feelers', he sends people. And those people come and they want me to invite the politician. Why should I invite? All the people come here. Whosoever wants to come here can come here. We are not here to pay special respect to anybody, and to politicians, certainly not. They send messages to me that 'X is ready to come to inaugurate the ashram,' that 'Y is ready to lay the foundation for the new commune.'


I will not allow any politician to lay the foundation of my commune; it will be sacrilegious. I will not allow any politician to come and inaugurate my ashram. Politicians -- what have they to do with religion? What do they know about religion? They have the dirtiest vibe possible.


BUt there were good days also in the past, and great people also. Listen to this anecdote.


The Emperor came to visit the Zen Master Joshu, who was meditating in his room.
'Tell him to come in and make his bows,' the Master said to his horrified attendant.
The Emperor entered and made his obeisance.


When Joshu was later asked about his rude behaviour, he explained, 'You just don't understand. If a visitor of low class comes, I go to the temple gate to greet him. For a middle class guest I get up from my seat. A great emperor cannot be treated like that.'


The Emperor, of course, had been delighted with his reception.


But those were great days. An emperor was delighted... But these poor politicians, they send messages that they should be received at the gate, garlanded; they should be treated as VIP's. What nonsense! If I even allow you entry, that is enough respect for you. If Sant does not prevent you at the gate, you should feel fortunate enough.


In the new commune, I am going to put a board on the gate: Politicians and dogs are not allowed.
			

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