Text Size +   -
Organism, Not Organization
Oshotalk header
Discourse | Titles | Subjects | Topics | Favorites
 
OSHO : The Last Testament, Volume 1, Chapter 10

OSHO,
Do you see any possibility that the people who can really change the course of events in the world today will ever listen to what you're saying, understand it, and try to implement it?

They will have to. There is no other alternative. It is a very strange situation: if they don't choose me, if they don't choose the transformation I am talking about, then they are choosing death for all humanity and all life. It is not a question of choosing between two ideologies. It is not a question of choosing between my philosophy and Karl Marx's philosophy or Bertrand Russell's philosophy. It is not a philosophical question. The question is existential.

If man decides not to listen to me, not to change, then he decides for committing suicide. That's why I say they will have to listen, they will have to understand, and they will have to go through the transformation, because nobody is ready to choose an ultimate death for all life.

If it was a question of choosing between two ideologies, it would be just intellectual gymnastics. That's why they are so much afraid of me. Slowly, slowly, the intelligent people around the world are becoming aware that it is necessary to do something so that man is saved, or be ready to die. And what I am proposing is the only alternative; no other alternative is proposed anywhere. There is no other possibility.

Man has looked into all the alternatives, has exhausted all the possibilities. He has tried to remain just the way he is, only changing ideologies, religions, scriptures. But he himself has remained the same. What is the difficulty? You choose the holy Koran instead of the Holy Bible; you are the same person, only the book has changed. The question was not the change of the book, the question was the change of your total being. They have done everything that was possible up to now.

I am not giving you any ideology, not another holy book. I am giving you a simple alternative: you have to drop your whole past -- your hatred, your distinctions of color and nation, your fights amongst religions, political ideologies -- you have to drop it in toto. There is no question of choosing something from the past; you have to drop it completely. You have to become discontinuous with the past, and that discontinuity with the past will bring the transformation. You have not to do anything else.

Just as the snake slips out of his old skin, leaving it aside completely -- he does not even look back -- man has to slip out of his past, not even looking back.

It is difficult, but not as difficult as death for all of life. The past is heavy, the past is deep rooted, but life and the desire to live is far stronger.

So on the one hand is the whole range of many alternatives, but all life-denying. If you choose them, then you are choosing death.

I am the only person here who is life-affirmative, who does not want to reject anything from life, who accepts life as it is, with no grudge, no complaint, with no desire that it should have been better -- who relishes it as it is. And there are no other life-affirmative ideologies around. So on the one hand there are many ideologies which are life-denying, life-negative. All those ideologies have led man to this point, where he is facing a total death of the planet.

I am against all those ideologies for the simple reason that I affirm life and I say that if you go deeper into your desire for life, you will find the eternal source of life. And if you choose life instead of death, then you will have to change all your other ideologies -- political, social, religious -- because they are all life-denying. They are complementary to each other.

Choosing me you have to drop your whole past; that is the fear. But there is no other way. It has never happened before that you had to choose a certain way of life or total destruction of all life from the planet.

That's why I emphasize that they will have to listen. They will try not to listen, but the situation is such that ultimately they have to listen to me, and they have to understand it also. In fact they will listen only when they are ready to understand. And when they are ready to understand they know perfectly well that it is not a question of changing your idea, it is a question of changing your whole life, its attitudes, approaches, everything. But they will have to, because on the other side, if they don't choose what I am saying, then they have to choose a global suicide.

So in a way, the nuclear weapons, diseases like AIDS, are all helping me. They will force humanity to understand me, otherwise it was not possible for them to listen to me or to understand or to transform. But the alternative is such that there is no way out. I am the only way out of this mess that their religions and their political philosophies have created in the world.

OSHO,
A journalist asked you recently about your warning that once a religion becomes organized, violence enters into it. You said that that was absolutely true and that the evidence was the organization and the guns around you. You said that you were fighting even with your people to stop institutionalization. Please comment.

I am fighting against any kind of institutionalization, organization. I want a totally different thing. I call it organism, not organization.

Organization is something outward; organism is something inward. Organization has no center, it is only periphery. A machine is organized. You put different parts together in a certain order, but the machine has no soul, no center. It functions, it works, but there is nobody inside it. A machine is an organization of parts assembled in a certain order to function in a certain way.

All the organizations up to now have done that: they changed human beings into mechanical parts, cogs in the wheel. They destroyed individuality because individuality was troublesome. They destroyed intelligence. They destroyed all kinds of disobedience, so that you can be a perfect part in the machine. And they respected those who became perfect parts in the machine, who simply moved according to the mechanism, who had no will of their own, no intelligence of their own, no individuality of their own. These are the people who are given Nobel prizes, gold medals....

An organism is something like your body. It functions together, but each organ of your body has its own individuality, and there is nobody who is ruling over it. It is not a part that you can replace.

Just the other day there was a question: "If brains can be transplanted, and we can transplant Albert Einstein's brain into somebody else's head, what will happen to Albert Einstein's soul?"

Nothing will happen to Albert Einstein's soul because the brain is not the soul, and nothing will happen to the mind because the mind only needs life energy -- it doesn't matter from where it comes, from whom it comes. It is a machine. To whomsoever -- even in an idiot's head...if you put in Albert Einstein's mind, the idiot will function like Albert Einstein. Not that the soul has changed, but now he has all the information, the brain, the whole accumulation of Albert Einstein's life, research, experiments. They are all part of the memory in the brain. They are like a computer.

And this man's life energy was being wasted by an idiotic mind because the idiotic mind could not do anything with life's energy. Life energy is the same: just you give it a right mechanism and it starts functioning. The idiot will function exactly as Albert Einstein.

He may not have known the language, the mathematics, the physics, anything before, but now he will speak the language of Albert Einstein -- his mathematical flights, his tremendous insight into physics -- just as easily as Albert Einstein. Perhaps more easily, because Albert Einstein was exhausted, spent and this is absolutely fresh. The idiot has never bothered to think, never bothered to inquire. His whole energy is fresh, young, available, unused. He may function better than Albert Einstein.

Organism functions in a unity, without anybody forcing the unity. And there is an innermost core -- the soul -- which simply supplies the energy to the whole.

I am against organization. It has a hierarchy, it moves from the lowest to the highest in a vertical line. Organism is a circle, not a vertical line; no hierarchy, but a circle. Nobody is higher than anybody else. And the circle has a center and that center is the source of energy for all, for all the organs which make the circle.

Every living thing is an organism. Every dead thing is an organization.

I would like my people to be an organism. And they are turning, slowly, slowly.... It is natural, because they have come from a world...thousands of years of conditioning they have carried with them. It takes time for them to drop it, but it is dropping.

There was one question, two, three days before. The questioner was asking me: "Before you started speaking, there was continuous hammering from the higher-ups in the commune to be positive, to be this, to be that. Since you started speaking, those hammerings have stopped. Nobody is telling us to be positive, but strangely enough, everybody is more positive than he was ever before, more loving, more in tune."

The difference is that I am not higher up, I am not in a vertical line from where I order you. I am amongst you, just in the middle, at the very center of the commune. I need not order. I can just be there and that will be enough for everybody else to function positively. They can take the energy, they can take the insight.

Of course they are not yet capable of understanding it in silence, but words they have become capable of understanding. Soon they will be capable of understanding the wordless presence too.

So, since I started speaking, they suddenly became a totally different group. They were an organization because I was silent, and the people who were responsible for running the commune had no other way than to say to you: "Do this. Don't do that." They cannot be condemned for that; there was no other way. They are just people like you.

With me things are different.

The moment I started speaking again, came back into the center, became the center of your existence -- of your thinking, of your being, of your dancing, of everything -- naturally, you started functioning the way you should function. There is no need to say it. You love me and out of that love arises your action. How can it be negative?

I love you. You know it, you feel it -- how can you act in any negative way? Then to be positive needs no effort. You simply are positive and nobody has told you.

So when I say I am against organization, my meaning is that humanity has lived in the form of organization -- the hierarchy, the bureaucracy -- and all those efforts have led nowhere except into more and more misery.

I am giving an alternative for everything.

Organization has to be replaced by an organism. The commune has to be an organism. I am working on that and it is happening. It will take a little time for people to start feeling for themselves that something strange is happening: they are functioning in tune, they are feeling responsible. Nobody is holding them responsible, nobody will condemn them for not being responsible, but suddenly they feel that's how life is more joyful, that's how life is more loving, that's how all misery, sadness, darkness, disappears.

And that's how you become respectable, not in others' eyes, but even in your own eyes. A tremendous self-respect arises, and you are not higher and nobody is lower than you. Your self-respect makes it possible for you to respect everyone as he is.

I have told the journalists that whatever I have said is as much applicable to my own people as to anybody else, because what I say is simply a universal law. So you can see here that it is still an organization. An organization will need violence or will be afraid of violence from outside. But I am still here and I would like the organization to completely disappear, not only from this place, but from everywhere in the world. Organization is not needed, just small communes which can function as an organic whole. And if people are joyous, if they feel life as a blessing, they will not commit violence because that is simply a disturbance of their own joy and of the joy of the other person.

But if only your commune becomes an organism and you are surrounded by organizations around you, then certainly you will need weapons, not for violence, but simply for self-defense.

Organizations are always trying to invade, trying to conquer -- conquer each and every thing. Even a man as intelligent as Bertrand Russell wrote a book, Conquest of Nature. Now that is ugly. We are part of nature, how can we conquer nature? That is creating a split. It is like one of my hands becomes the conqueror of my whole being. That is simply not possible, but because nature is silent and non-argumentative, you can go on saying anything. What have you conquered in nature?

All that you have done is you have learned the laws of nature, and you are following the laws of nature. Hence you have become more productive, more creative, more powerful. But this is not conquest of nature; this is simply an inquiry -- and nature is compassionate enough that it goes on opening its secrets to you. And you are such ungrateful creatures that on the one hand nature is opening its secrets to you, and on the other hand you are declaring that you have conquered nature. But that is the language of the organizational man: violence, conquest, victory.

But if there is a commune, an organism surrounded by organizations, there is every possibility those organizations will try to invade you, conquer you, destroy you, be violent with you.

To me, to do violence is something ugly; but to allow violence to be done to you is also ugly.

In both cases you are partners. Violence can be done only with two partners. Either you can be the doer or you can be the receiver.

I do not teach any kind of non-violence, like Mahatma Gandhi, which failed tremendously. And it is such a strange world that nobody looks at Mahatma Gandhi and the failure of his non-violence, utter failure. His revolution in 1942 died within nine days, and with no effect.

The revolution of a country like India against the British kingdom simply withers away in nine days. Just a few people are thrown into jail and it is finished. And without any effect, because in 1942 India did not become independent.

The fact is that after 1942, Gandhi and his close colleagues had all lost hope that in their own life India could become independent, because their greatest effort had just withered away in nine days, and they had been preparing for fifty years. Now to have another revolution...they wouldn't be alive, they were all getting old. But in 1947, five years after the revolution....

In any revolution, things happen immediately. It is not that in 1917 the communist revolution happens and the czar goes on ruling five years and then he says: "Okay. You win. Your revolution has succeeded." If a revolution succeeds then the slavery is finished.

But 1942 did not bring any victory, any freedom to India. In fact it brought a tremendous hopelessness, despair, and almost a certainty that it was impossible to be free.

In 1947 Britain gave India freedom not because of Gandhi and his non-violent revolution; it gave India freedom because India became a burden.

You want to rule people if you can exploit them.

Britain had exploited for three hundred years everything that was valuable; everything that Britain wanted was transferred to Britain. They sucked all the blood from India. And now there were four hundred million people, hungry, starving. Now it was the responsibility of the government to feed these people, to take care of these people, and that would have been very economically heavy on Britain.

When you have sucked the blood of the country and there are only bones, it is better to make them free. Then whatsoever they go through -- suffering, poverty, starvation -- it is their responsibility.

In fact, Lord Mountbatten was sent to India with orders that before 1948 he somehow had to manage to withdraw from India. But when he went to India and saw the situation he informed the British government: "It may be too late. And escaping in a situation when India is starving will expose your whole policy to the world, that this is not giving freedom, this is simply being irresponsible. While India could give you so much, you cannot even manage enough food for them."

Mountbatten said: "In 1947 we will be finished. Don't wait for 1948. One year can prove dangerous. The earlier the better."

And it was better for Britain -- not for India -- because if Britain was really being helpful, it should have trained India how to rule, how to manage. It should have transferred Mohammedans to Pakistan, Hindus to India under military control -- because it was an absolute certainty that if India and Pakistan were made free and the people had not been transferred, then there was going to be immense violence. And that violence happened.

More than one million people died as independence was declared, because to transfer millions of people from India to Pakistan and from Pakistan to India was not an easy job. Who was going to do it?

And when people have no time, and when they are leaving their country and moving to another country, who is going to allow them to take all their money? Of course, they cannot take their houses, their lands, they cannot sell them. Who is going to purchase them? -- Because everybody knows they have to leave them without any question. "They are ours." And money, women -- anybody they wanted -- they would not allow to go. Women were transferred into Mohammedanism.

The people who came to India from Pakistan were utterly desolated.

They had lost all their life's earnings, their houses, their friends. They had lost their families. And the same was the situation in India with Mohammedans, on a little smaller scale, because Hindus are not so violent. Just because they were vegetarians, to kill was an impossibility for them. But on a lesser scale it happened. Thousands of Mohammedans were killed.

And Mountbatten with his government slipped out of the country. The whole responsibility fell on India's and Pakistan's governments. They were unable to manage -- how you can manage a country within a day?

On the fifteenth of August the country became free, and on the fifteenth of August, thousands of people were being killed, thousands of houses were on fire. The government had not even figured out whose department belonged to whom, they had not been yet able to divide the cabinets, the ministers, who was the chief of the army and who was the person responsible for orders. Immediately they had to face such great violence. And after that they have been continuously going down and down.

I am not in favor of the philosophy of Gandhian non-violence. I love non-violence, but that does not mean that I will allow my people to be killed. At least they should die with dignity; they should not be just killed like dumb animals.

So while the whole world remains organizational, the commune will be an organism inside, but for the outside world it will certainly maintain a tough face. We are not going to harm anybody on our own, but we are not going to allow anybody to harm us either. And that is natural to every organism. What I am saying is not philosophy.

Your body will protect itself in any case. If the house is on fire, everybody will start getting out of the house as quickly as possible. It is natural. Life wants to save itself, and there is nothing wrong in.

The very quality of people with weapons in their hands changes the moment they are not serving an organization, but are part of an organism.

That is very difficult for people to understand. That's why I did not go into detail on that day; it would have been absolutely impossible for them. For them a gun is a gun. To them it does not matter who is holding it. To me it matters much...more important than the gun.

If Gautam Buddha is holding the gun, the quality of the gun is no more the same as when Adolf Hitler is holding the same gun. With Gautam Buddha, the gun is not going to be used to harm anybody, but in the hands of Adolf Hitler it is certainly going to be used to harm people, kill people. The gun is neutral. The gun has no values of its own. The values come from the person who holds it.

With my Sannyasins holding guns, I have not for a single moment felt that they can do any harm to anybody. But to the outside people, it is certainly difficult.

Just a few days ago, one Swedish magazine has published a big article against me, the commune, and has almost tried to prove that this is a military organization. And in the editorial note it says that nothing like this has been seen since Adolf Hitler. And all that they have done -- they have taken pictures of Sannyasins holding guns, enlarged those pictures, filled the whole article with guns -- looking at the magazine one would think that there must be thousands of soldiers here marching with guns.

The journalist was here but he did not ask for an interview. Now I call this immensely cowardly. He just took photographs and only of what he wanted: people holding guns -- that is his main theme -- and just spread them. Double page spreads of guns, and small notes like: "This is the most dangerous place that is growing here. Sooner or later it will become a problem to the whole world."

And I was giving interviews to journalists. He was here, he could have asked, he should have asked for an interview. Before he published anything, he should have inquired of me, but in fact he completely avoided inquiring of anybody. He simply had come with a prejudice, and with that prejudice he took the pictures...and he has made a full article.

Now anybody reading that article cannot imagine that all this is false. And in a way it is true, because those pictures are not wrong, just the presentation is cunning. The presentation is prejudicial.

This commune and other communes are not going to be organizations. They are going to be almost like one body. But every organism naturally, instinctively faces danger.

Our communes will face any danger; we will find ways and means to face it. But we cannot allow anybody to do harm without any response to it, because that means you are helping the invader, you are helping the violent man, you are helping violence. You have become part of the violence and its games.

We are not going to become part of violence and its games. If we can prevent violence through weapons, we will prevent through weapons. If we see that we are a small commune and weapons cannot prevent it, then we will prevent with our open chests, singing and dancing. We will leave those people guilty for their whole lives that they killed innocent, dancing people who were not doing any harm to anybody. If we can protect life, we will protect it. If we cannot protect life, then we will rejoice in death -- but we will do something!

And I'm not against doing something, just the quality has to be totally different.

OSHO : The Last Testament, Volume 1, Chapter 10
Top
 
 
 



Home | ContactAbout Site MapOsho Centres | Other Links | Trademark | Copyleft / Privacy Policy