View Full Version : Teachings of Osho..

Q' lypse
30th June 2011, 09:28 PM

Osho on Marriage - Marriage should be transcended

Question - Why do you appear to put down Marriage and yet tell people to get Married?

Osho - This is from Anurag. To me, marriage is a dead thing. It is an institution, and you cannot live in an institution; only mad people live in institutions. It is a substitute for love. Love is dangerous: to be in love is to be in a storm, constantly. You need courage and you need awareness, and you are to be ready for anything. There is no security in love; love is insecure. Marriage is a security: the registry office, the police, the court are behind it. The state, the society, the religion -- they are all behind it. Marriage is a social phenomenon. Love is individual, personal, intimate.

Because love is dangerous, insecure.... And nobody knows where love will lead. It is just like a cloud -- moving with no destination. Love is a hidden cloud, whereabouts unknown. Nobody knows where it is at any moment of time. Unpredictable -- no astrologer can predict anything about love. About marriage? -- astrologers are very, very helpful; they can predict.

Man has to create marriage because man is afraid of the unknown. On all levels of life and existence, man has created substitutes: for love there is marriage; for real religion there are sects -- they are like marriages. Hinduism, Mohammedanism, Christianity, Jainism -- they are not real religion. Real religion has no name; it is like love. But because love is dangerous and you are so afraid of the future, you would like to have some security. You believe more in insurance companies than in life. That's why you have created marriage.

Marriage is more permanent than love. Love may be eternal, but it is not permanent. It may continue forever and forever, but there is no inner necessity for it to continue. It is like a flower: bloomed in the morning, by the evening gone. It is not like the rock. Marriage is more permanent; you can rely on it. In old age it will be helpful.

It is a way to avoid difficulties, but whenever you avoid difficulties and challenges you have avoided growth also. Married people never grow. Lovers grow, because they have to meet the challenge every moment -- and with no security. They have to create an inner phenomenon. With security you need not bother to create anything; the society helps. Marriage is a formality, a legal bondage. Love is of the heart; marriage is of the mind. That's why I am never in favor of marriage.

But the question is pertinent, relevant, because sometimes I tell people to get married. Marriage is a hell, but sometimes people need it. What to do? So I have to tell them to get into marriage. They need to pass through the hell of it, and they cannot understand the hell of it unless they pass through it. I am not saying that in marriage love cannot grow; it can grow, but there is no necessity for it. I am not saying that in love marriage cannot grow; it can grow, but there is no necessity, no logical necessity in it.

Love can become marriage, but then it is a totally different kind of marriage: it is not a social formality, it is not an institution, it is not a bondage. When love becomes marriage it means two individuals decide to live together -- but in absolute freedom, nonpossessive of each other. Love is nonpossessive; it gives freedom.

When love grows into marriage, marriage is not an ordinary thing. It is absolutely extraordinary. It has nothing to do with the registry office. You may need the registry office also, the social sanction may be needed, but those are just on the periphery; they are not the central core of it. In the center is the heart, in the center is freedom.

And sometimes out of marriage also love can grow, but it rarely happens. Out of marriage love rarely happens. At the most, familiarity. At the most, a certain kind of sympathy, not love. Love is passionate; sympathy is dull. Love is alive; sympathy is just so-so, lukewarm.

But why do I tell people to get married? When I see that they are after security, when I see that they are after social sanction, when I see they are afraid, when I see that they cannot move into love if marriage is not there, then I tell them to go into it -- but I will go on helping them to go beyond it. I will go on helping them to transcend it.

Marriage should be transcended; only then real marriage happens. Marriage should be forgotten completely. In fact the other person you have been in love with should always remain a stranger and never should be taken for granted. When two persons live as strangers, there is a beauty to it, a very simple, innocent beauty to it. And when you live with somebody as a stranger....

And everybody is a stranger. You cannot know a person. Knowledge is very superficial; a person is very profound. A person is an infinite mystery. That's why we say everybody carries a god within. How can you know a god? At the most you can touch the periphery. And the more you know about a person, the more humble you will become -- the more you will feel that the mystery is untouched. In fact the mystery becomes more and more deep. The more you know, the less you feel that you know.

If lovers are really in love, they will never reduce the other person to a known entity; because only things can be known -- persons never. Only things can become part of knowledge. A person is a mystery -- the greatest mystery there is.

Transcend marriage. It is not a question of legality, formality, family -- all that nonsense. Needed, because you live in a society, but transcend; don't be finished at that. And don't try to possess a person. Don't start feeling that the other is the husband -- you have reduced the beauty of the person into an ugly thing: husband. Never say that this woman is your wife -- the stranger is no longer there; you have reduced it to a very profane level, to a very ordinary level of things. Wives and husbands belong to the world. Lovers belong to the other shore.

Remember the sacredness and holiness of the other. Never impinge on it; never trespass it. A lover is always hesitant. He always gives you space to be yourself. He is grateful; he never feels that you are his possession. He is thankful that sometimes in rare moments you allow him your innermost shrine to enter and to be with you. He is always thankful.

But husbands and wives are always complaining, never thankful -- always fighting. And if you watch their fight it is ugly. The whole beauty of love disappears. Only a very ordinary reality exists: the wife, the husband, the children, and the day-to-day routine. The unknown no longer touches it. That's why you will see dust gathers around -- a wife looks dull, a husband looks dull. Life has lost meaning, vibrancy, significance. It is no longer a poetry; it has become gross.

Love is poetry. Marriage is ordinary prose, good for ordinary communication. If you are purchasing vegetables, good; but if you are looking at the sky and talking to God, not enough -- poetry is needed. Ordinary life is proselike. A religious life is poetrylike: a different rhythm, a different meter, something of the unknown and the mysterious.

I am not in favor of marriage. Don't misunderstand me -- I am not saying to live with people unmarried. Do whatsoever the society wants to be done, but don't take it as the whole. That is just the periphery; go beyond it. And I tell you to get married if I feel that this is what you need. In fact if I feel that you need to go in hell I would allow you -- and push you -- to go in hell, because that is what you need, and that is how you will grow.

Source: from Osho Book "Yoga: The Alpha and the Omega, Vol 6"


Q' lypse
30th June 2011, 09:32 PM
I've always said a similar thing about marriage but I couldn't quite put it so eloquently as Osho did. Something just didn't seem right to me about the whole marriage deal. Lets sign here so that I don't screw up, and if I do, I will be in trouble. Its a contract.

1st July 2011, 05:27 PM
Given an establishment half of whose teams fail miserably while a significant fraction of the rest are dissatisfied, can you really call it a successful institution

Q' lypse
8th July 2011, 08:31 AM
Osho on Marriage and Friendship

Question : Why is it so difficult for men and women to be Friends? It Seems so ordinary, and turns out to be almost Impossible. Either there is an ugly compromise -- like man and wife -- Or else Passion that eventually turns into Hate. Why is There always ugliness between men and women?

Osho : It is very simple to understand. Marriage is the ugliest institution invented by man. It is not natural; it has been invented so that you can monopolize a woman. You have been treating women as if they were a piece of land, or some currency notes. You have reduced the woman to a thing. Remember that if you reduce any human being to a thing -- unaware, unconscious -- you are also being reduced to the same status; otherwise, you will not be able to communicate. If you can talk with a chair, you must be a chair.

Marriage is against nature. You can be certain only of this moment that is in your hands. All promises for tomorrow are lies -- and marriage is a promise for your whole life, that you will remain together, that you will love each other, that you will respect each other till your last breath. And these priests, who are the inventors of many ugly things, say to you that marriages are made in heaven. Nothing is made in heaven; there is no heaven. If you listen to nature, your problems, your questions will simply evaporate.

The problem is: biologically man is attracted to woman, women are attracted to men, but that attraction cannot remain the same forever. You are attracted to something which is a challenge to get. You see a beautiful man, a beautiful woman; you are attracted. Nothing is wrong in it. You feel your heart beating faster. You would like to be with this woman or man, and the attraction is so tremendous that in that moment you think you would like to live with this woman forever.

Lovers don't deceive each other, they are saying the truth -- but that truth belongs to the moment. When lovers say to each other, "I cannot live without you," it is not that he is deceiving or she is deceiving, they mean it. But they don't know the nature of life. Tomorrow this same woman will not look so beautiful. As days pass, the man and the woman both will feel that they are imprisoned. They have know each other's geography completely. First it was an unknown territory to be discovered, now there is nothing to be discovered.

And to go on repeating the same words and the same acts looks mechanical, ugly. That's why passion turns into hate. The woman hates you, because you are going to do the same thing again. To prevent you, the moment the husband enters the house she goes to bed, she has a headache. She wants somehow not to get into the same rut. And the man is flirting with his secretary in the office; now she is an unknown territory. To me, it is all nature. What is unnatural is binding people in the name of religion, in the name of God, for their whole life.

In a better, more intelligent world, people will love, but will not make any contracts. It is not a business! They will understand each other, and they will understand the changing flux of life. They will be true to each other. The moment the man feels that now his beloved holds no joy for him, he will say that the time has come to part. There is no need for marriage, there is no need for divorce. Then friendship will be possible. You ask me why friendship is not possible between men and women.... Friendship is not possible between the jailer and the imprisoned.

Friendship is possible between equal human beings, totally free from all bondage of society, culture, civilization, only living true to their authentic nature. It is not an insult to the woman to say, "Honey, the honeymoon is over." It is not an insult to the man if the woman says, "Now things cannot be beautiful. The wind that has blown is no longer there. The season has changed, it is no longer spring between us; no flowers blossom, no fragrance arises. It is time to part." And because there is no legal bondage of marriage, there is no question of any divorce.

It is ugly that the court and the law and the state interfere in your private life -- you have to ask their permission. Who are they? It is a question between two individuals, their private affair. There will be only friends -- no husbands, no wives. Of course, if there is only friendship, passion will never turn into hate. The moment you feel passion disappearing, you will say good-bye, and it will be understood. Even if it hurts, nothing can be done about it -- it is the way of life.

But man has created societies, cultures, civilizations, rules, regulations, and made the whole humanity unnatural. That's why men and women cannot be friends. And men and women either become husbands and wives -- which is something absolutely ugly; they start owning each other.... People are not things, you cannot have ownership. If I feel your wife is beautiful, and approach her, you are angry, you are ready to fight because I am approaching your property. No wife is anybody's property, no husband is anybody's property.

What kind of world have you created? People are reduced to properties; then there is jealousy, hatred. You yourself know that you are attracted to the neighbor's wife; naturally, you can guess about your wife too. Your wife knows perfectly well she is attracted to somebody else, but she cannot approach that person because of the husband: he is standing there with a gun! Love is bound to turn into hate, and for the whole life the hate goes on accumulating. And out of this hatred do you think beautiful children are going to be born?

They are not born out of love, but out of duty. It is the wife's duty to allow you to use her. To tell the truth, there is no difference between wives and prostitutes. The difference is just like the difference between having your own car or going in a taxi. A prostitute is purchased only for a few hours; wives are a long-term affair, it is economical. Royal families are not allowed to marry outside royal blood: status, money, power.... Nobody can love anybody in such circumstances, where the relationship is financial.

The woman is dependent on you because you earn. And for centuries men have not allowed women to be educated, to be in business, to have jobs, for the simple reason that if the woman has her own financial status, her own bank account, you cannot reduce her to a thing. She has to be dependent on you. And do you think anybody who has to be dependent on you will love you? Every woman wants to kill the husband. It is another matter that she does not kill him -- because if she kills him, what will she do?

She is not educated, she has no experience of the society, she has no way of earning. The husband -- every husband, I don't make any exceptions -- wants to get rid of the woman. But he cannot get rid of her. There are children, and he himself has promised the woman thousands of times that he loves her. When he goes to his job he kisses the woman; there is no love in it, just skeletons touching each other. :D:D:D Nobody is present. Man has created a society in which friendship between man and woman is impossible.

Remember, friendship is so valuable that whatsoever the consequence, remain friends even with your wife, even with your husband, and allow absolute and total freedom to each other. I don't see any problem. If I love a woman, and one day she says that she has fallen in love with somebody else and feels very happy, I will be happy. I love her, and I would like her to be happy -- where is the problem? I will help her in every way so that she can be more happy. If she can be more happy with somebody else, what hurts me?

It is your ego that hurts: she has found somebody else who is better than you. It is not a question of better, it may be just your chauffeur -- it is just a question of a little change. And if you give full freedom to each other, perhaps you can remain together for your whole life, or for the whole eternity, because there is no need to get rid of each other. Marriage creates the need to get rid of each other, because it means freedom is taken away -- and freedom is the highest value in human life.

Make all the couples free, and you will be surprised, this very world becomes paradise. here are other problems. You have children -- what to do with children? My answer is that children should not belong to their parents, they should belong to the commune. Then there is no problem. The parents can meet the children, they can invite the children, they can be friends with their children; and yet the children are not dependent on them, they belong to the commune. And it will destroy many psychological problems.

If a boy knows only his mother, the mother's personality becomes an imprint on him. Now, his whole life he will be trying to find a woman who is like his mother -- and he will never find such a woman. A girl will never find another man who is exactly a copy of her father. Then you cannot be satisfied with any woman, any man. But if the children belong to the commune, they will come in contact with so many uncles and so many aunts -- they will not carry a single picture in their minds.

They will have a vague idea of womanhood or manhood, and to that idea, many people of the commune will have contributed; it will be multidimensional. There is a possibility of finding somebody, because you only have a vague idea. You can find somebody, and that person will make your vague idea solid, a reality. Right now you have a solid idea within you, and you meet a vague person. Sooner or later there is disappointment. And children belonging to the commune will learn much, will be more friendly, will be more available to all kinds of influences.

They will be richer. A child being brought up by a couple is very poor. He does not know that there are millions of people with different minds, different kinds of beauty. If a child moves in the commune, naturally he will be far richer. And he will have known so much before he decides to be with someone that there is a possibility of a long friendship. What happens now? You see a girl on the beach and you fall in love. You know nothing about the girl, you know only her make-up.

Tomorrow morning when you get up and the make-up is gone, you will say, "My God! What have I done? This is not the woman I married, this is someone else!" But you cannot go against your word either. And if you do, then the government is there, the courts are there to put you back into your right place. This is a very ugly situation, sick. People should be given freedom to know each other, to know as many people as possible, because each person is so unique, there is no question of comparison. Let the child drink from many sources, and he will have some insight into who is going to be the right person to live with.

Nobody will fall in love; everybody will decide consciously that "This is the one." He has known so many people, he understands that this is the one who has those characteristics, those qualities that he has loved. And then too it is only going to be a friendship. There is no fear; if tomorrow things change there is no harm. The society should not live in a routine way, in a fixed way -- static, dormant -- it should be a moving flux. One woman can give you a certain kind of joy, another woman can give you another kind of joy.

A third woman will be a surprise. So why remain poor"? -- just because Jesus has said, "Blessed are the poor"? Be richer in every dimension, and keep yourself open and available. And whoever you are with, let the other person understand clearly that "It is freedom between us, not a marriage license. Out of freedom we meet, with no promises for the future -- because who knows the future?"

When I was a student in the university in my final master's course, one girl was very much interested in me. She was a beautiful girl, but my interest was not in women at that time. I was crazy in search of God! After the examinations, when she was leaving the university.... She had waited -- I knew it -- she had waited and waited for me to approach her. That is the usual way, that the man approaches the woman; it is graceful for the woman not to approach the man.

Strange idea... I don't understand. Whoever approaches, it is graceful. If fact, whoever initiates is courageous. When we were leaving the university she said, "Now there is no chance." She took me aside and said, "For two years continuously I have been waiting. Can't we be together for our whole lives? I love you."

I said, "If you love me, then please leave me alone. I also love you, that's why I am leaving you alone -- because I know what has been happening in the name of love.

People are becoming imprisoned, chained; they lose all their joy, life becomes a drag. So this is my parting advice to you," I said, "Never try to cling to a person for your whole life." If two persons are willingly together today, it is more than enough. If tomorrow again they feel like being together, good. If they don't, it is their personal affair; nobody has to interfere. Up to now, the problem of the children has always been raised. My answer is that children should belong to the commune.

They can go to their parents, whether their parents are together or separate. And they should learn from their parents that love is no slavery, it is freedom. And they should move in the commune, tasting, enjoying different qualities of different people. So by the time they decide, their decision will be not just a foolish type of "falling in love"; it will be a very considered, contemplated, meditated phenomenon. There is a possibility they may remain together for their whole lives. In fact, if there is freedom, there is more possibility; more people will remain together.

If marriage disappears, divorce disappears automatically. This is a by-product of marriage. Nobody takes note of the simple fact: why for centuries have there been prostitutes? Who created them? Who is responsible for these poor women? It is the institution of marriage. You are bored with your wife; just for a change you go to a woman who is not going to be a bondage -- because one is enough, two will be too much. It is just a temporary, few hours' meeting. You can keep yourself lovely for a few hours, loving for a few hours.

She can keep herself lovely and loving for a few hours. And moreover, she has been paid for it. Around the world millions of women are reduced to selling their bodies. Who has done it? Your political leaders, your religious leaders. I consider these people criminals. And not ordinary criminals, because for centuries the whole humanity has been suffering because of these few idiots.:D:D:D But you have to start with yourself, there is no other way. If you love somebody, then freedom should be the connecting link between you.

And if you see your woman tomorrow hugging somebody else, there is no need to be jealous. She is being enriched, she is tasting a little newness -- just the way you go sometimes to a Chinese restaurant! It is good. You will come back to your own food, but the Chinese restaurant has helped you; you may relish your own food more. But after a few days, again -- that's how the mind is -- you are moving towards an Italian restaurant... spaghetti. I cannot even tolerate somebody eating spaghetti in front of me!

But that is my problem. Life is so simple and so beautiful, just one thing is missing: freedom. If your wife is being with some other people, soon she will come back to you enriched, with new insight. And she will find something in you she had never found before. And meanwhile, you need not just sit down in your chair and beat your head. You also gain experience, so that by the time your woman is back you are also new. You have also been to the Chinese restaurant. Life should be a joy, a rejoicing. And then only can there be friendship between men and women; otherwise, they are going to remain intimate enemies.


Q' lypse
8th July 2011, 08:34 AM
I kinda hold similar views but this has gone over my head. Damn man Osho. What a challenge.

The children and the commune in African and Asian cultures. Some of us grew up like that and it is one of the most beautiful times growing up. Its as if the whole community raises the children. I really like what he said about growing up and wanting to marry someone who is a parent. One way kind of life. I really like the collective culture's way of raising a child.

Quophi Aletse
8th July 2011, 04:23 PM
wonderfully put by osho ..... the intricacies of the rift between the two equal halves of humanity ....... raising children is a problematic area in humanity as well .....

and also osho indirectly touched on the states of conception ......... a union establish on contract bring children summoned by a contract .... a contract established on fear ..... the children feel this .... and are aware of this paa ....... and they say children are stubborn these days .... lolololol ...... well they were not conceive in love ..... it was a contract and how do u really want a child born because of a contract's relationship to u to eventually be .....